Extracts of an opinion of Mr Attorney General Bates dated November 29 1862

We have natural-born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, par. 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority—in fact) the mass of our citizens— for all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenise a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or by the legal process of adoption. And in this connection the Constitution says not one word, and furnishes not one hint, in relation to the color or to the ancestral race of the ” natural-born citizen.” Whatever may have been said in the opinions of judges and lawyers, and in State statutes, about negroes, mulattoes, and persons of color, the Constitution is wholly silent upon that subject. The Constitution itself does not make the citizens; (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—homeborn—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born— making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.

And I am not aware of any provision in our laws to warrant us in presuming the existence in this country of a class of persons intermediate between citizens and aliens. In England there is such a class, clearly denned by law, and called denizens. “A denizen,” Hays Sir William Blackstone, ” is an alien born, but who has obtained, ex donatione regis, letters-patent to make him an English subject; a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien and a natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them.”—(Sharwood’s Com., 374.) In this country I know of but one legal authority tending to show the existence of such a class among us. One of my learned predecessors, Mr. Legare, (4 Opin., 147,) supposes that there may be such a class, and that free colored persons may be ranked in it. Yet, in that same opinion, he declares that a “freeman of color, a native of this country, may be admitted to the privileges of a pre-emptioner under the 10th section of the act of the 4th September, 1841.” And that act declares that a pre-emptioner must be either a citizen of the United States or a person who had declared his intention to become a citizen, as required by the naturalization laws. Of course the ” colored man ” must have been a citizen, or he could not have entered the land under that act of Congress. If not a citizen then by virtue of his native birth, he never could become one by force of law, for our laws extend the privileges of naturalization to such persons only as are “aliens, being free white persons,” and he was neither ; not alien, because natural-born in the country; and not a free white person, because, though free, confessedly ” a man of color.”

If this be a true principle—and I do not doubt it—it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchigement strong enough to override the ” natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.

That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as between the individual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by authority. Nevertheless, for the satisfaction of those who may have doubts upon the subject, I note a few books, which, I think, cannot fail to remove all such doubts: Kent s Com., vol. 2, part 4, sec. 25; Bl. Com., book 1, ch. 10, p. 365; 7 Co. Rep., Calvin’s case; 4 Term Rep., p. 300, Doe v. Jones; 3 Pet. Rep., p. 246, Shanks v. Dupont; and see a very learned treatise, attributed to Mr. Binney in 2 Am. Law Reporter, 193.

In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection; and these are correlative obligations, the one the price of the other, and they constitute the all-sufficient bond of union between the individual and his country, and the country he is born in is, prima facie, hit country. In most countries the old law was broadly laid down that this natural connection between the individual and his native country was perpetual—at least that the tie was indissoluble by the act of the subject alone. (See Bl. Com. supra ; 3 Pet. Rep.)

The goal of this blog is to provide a more in-depth overview of the history of the birther movement, the main players, the legal cases, the arguments, the myths and the ‘Good, Bad and Ugly”.

Most of the interesting lawsuits have been settled and after having been involved in addressing claims, doing much research, it seems like a good time and place to reflect back on the last 2 years or so.

The Wiki will provide an overview of scholarly research, and will address claims, myths and facts surrounding the eligibility of President Obama.

I have been playing with the idea of adding a forum to the site but I believe that sites such as politijab.com, provides a much better platform. Instead my goals will be to focus on collecting a comprehensive overview of the birther movement.