ashe

You are seriously over thinking the situation. First, you are right about one thing, the DoR didn't establish citizenship. In fact, the DoR really did nothing except deliver a message to the king. It didn't establish a nation, it didn't establish citizenship, and it didn't establish states. States weren't formed until after the war when each colony formed their constitutions. Before that time, those colonies were British property. And before that point, citizens in the colonies were British citizens. British citizens could move around between England, Ireland, Scotland, and the new world colonies and still be British citizens. The colonies did not have independent governments. They did have governors that were appointed by the crown.

No matter what happened, Andrew Johnson was living on this continent as a British citizen before the U.S. was created, before the articles of confederation was ratified, and before the DoR was delivered to the king, declaring the colonies independent from Britian. There is no issue. Someone tried to create something to sell books to amateur history buffs.

Fins, there were no American citizens prior to 1789, there were only citizens of States. Article II of the Articles of Confederation make citizenship a State issue. You had to be a citizen of your State to meet the requirements of the Presidency in 1789 - you have to be a citizen of your STATE, not the United States, as the United States did not exist prior to the Constitution, prior to the Constitution , you have a confederation of sovereign entities.

British citizenship didn't mean squat.

Fins, you have your colonial history wrong. The Declaration of Independence did not confer American citizenship on British Citizens in the Americas. Only the States could confer that. The first constitution - the

Articles of Confederation, left that chore to the States. The Constitution, the second Constitution gave congress the power to make citizens who were not citizens of the several states.

DOI 1776

Articles of Confederation 1783

Constitution 1789

First Congressional Law On Naturalization 1990

If you start discussing the accuracy of their sources, then you give validity to their invalid topic. And it's not a matter of your opinion or belief. Citizenship is a cut and dry legal matter. Not what you think or don't think

Who really cares where the man was or was not born. He is the President!!!!!

Fins, just because someone doesn't respond to the multiple points brought up in this post, (though I dare to call them that) doesn't mean you need to be insulting. I have read the constitution AND I believe Obama became a US Citizen by birth. I just feel that it's important when crazy faulty claims like this are made to point out to those making them, that if they are utilizing Wikipedia as a reliable news source then they aren't going to get far.

I don't require a response from you.

You still miss a key part. Even if he was born on the boat on the way over, he arrived I the colonies while they were still under British rule, before the Declaration of Independence was signed. And his parents were British subjects, making him a British subject, like all of the colony residents when the DOI was signed. So while you may have thought Ekcert's book was interesting, it was as much a waste of time as is debating obama's birth certificate.

Colonial NC Law is not easy to find. You could become naturalized based on the initial grant documents to the 8 Lords Proprietor

The following is from Colonial America Digressions: "The Lords Proprietor of Carolina received a charter from King Charles II in 1665. Four years later, they adopted 'The Fundamental Constitution of Carolina,' written by John Locke, which made naturalization an easy process for foreigners who moved to the new colony.

The problem for Jackson, even in North Carolina, is that he would have had to take this oath and present himself as an immigrant prior to passage of the Constitution in 1789. Congress's first naturalization law was passed in 1790 and required just two years IIRC. Jackson would never have anticipated the rules adopted in 1789 for the Presidency.

He was caught between a rock and hard place hence his early history is very, very fuzzy.

However, even if it had been determined and he was born at sea, or in Ireland, there is a strong possibility that an appeal to the Supreme Court may have resulted in the confirmation of citizenship necessary to be sworn in for President based on some sort of wink and a nod as the reason for the law was to prevent foreign powers from interfering with our elections and Jackson was clearly not under such influence. But who knows.

I still find it amazing the crazies that claim that a person born of an American citizen (Obama's Mom) might not be an American citizen.

The adoption of the Constitution did not confer citizenship on anyone. Citizenship was in the hands of the States under the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution gives Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4) Congress had not established those laws when the Constitution was adopted in 1789.

In Article II Section I, Paragraph 5 (the presidency) the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

If Jackson was not born on US Soil, and had not applied for Naturalization in one of the States, he was not a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, hence not eligible for the Presidency.

As I noted before, if you want to read about the subject, Allen Eckert has done the most research on the subject, and while Naturalization "could" have been decided on NC law, even that is murky based on all the smoke and cover over Jackson's early years. I don't know what NC's laws were are the time, but I'll look them up.

Also, I don't know where you got 1755, but Jackson's date of birth is listed as 1767. Also, His family lived in NC. There has been debate on which side of the boarder they lived on when he was born. But later did clearly move into NC. So naturalization, if it were even an issue, could have been decided on NC laws.

I know at least most of the continental congress was born in the colonies. Jefferson and Washington were both born in VA. Also, franklin was born in Boston, and he was one of the oldest participants.

You are forgetting that before the constitution was ratified, no one was a citizen of the United States. When it was ratified, it made people living in the states US citizens. So again, Jackson's birthplace doesn't really matter

If Jackson was born at sea as many think, then his immigration status back then would be decided by the laws of South Carolina under the Articles of Confederation that predate the Constitution. South Carolina required a two year residency but most importantly South Carolina required a special act of their legislature. http://www.heritage.org/res...similation

South Carolina and Georgia had very strict naturalization laws back then.

If he were born at sea, then to be an automatic citizen in 1789, he would have needed to be naturalized by a State prior to 1789 - something he never did, and something he would not have been contemplating before 1789.

This goes a long to explaining why you could never get a straight answer about his life prior to his official military service after 1800.

One of the things I find most interesting about the Constitution is that the Articles of Confederation are not specifically repealed. Although the last case that I can recall that jumped back the Articles had to do with the issuance of Texas' Civil War bonds (circa 1868 or so).

Fins, according to author Allan Eckert in his book The Frontiersmen, Jackson was born on ship en route to the United State from Ireland in 1755 by Northern Irish parents. He notes that several women on that ship told that story and that his birth at sea and not in the US is the reason his prior family history is so murky.

Being two years older than he claimed goes a long way to explaining his treatment by the British during the Revolutionary War, otherwise, you have British cutting a 14 year old. It's difficult to imagine a 14 year old standing up to a sword, while a 16 year old is more plausible. http://www.trivia-library.c...istics.htm

If Jackson were born at sea he's an immigrant to North or South Carolina and not a natural born citizen even at the time of the adoption to the Constitution in 1789 because of course his parents were Irish not American. Of course, when you ask for a definition of natural born citizen you get any one of a dozen explanations and they seem to morph over the decades since the Founders did not really define the term.

I don't think any of the Continental Congress was actually born off US soil but I could be wrong. I don't think any of the signers of the Constitution two decades later were born off US soil, but again I could be wrong. I'll have to check.

And another one still doesn't get it. If you all would learn what the constitution says, you would know that points like Wikipedia being a source isn't even an issue.

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a reliable or valid news source.

Personally it don't matter to me if the President is a US born citizen or not...Worse things have happened..

While I've not found any evidence supporting that theory, you are the first I've ever heard suggest it, it doesn't matter, because he was a citizen at the time the constitution was ratified.

Am I the only one that has read the document?

Does this mean that everything Andrew Jackson did is illegal - it's been pretty well documented that he was actually born in Scotland before he and his mother got to the SC/NC boarder.

It's quite funny, I'm the one that knows what the constitution says, but the troll thinks I'm not bright. Ok... If you bother to check, MIT romney's father's attorney said the same thing that Fins said when mitt's dad thought about running for president.

Oh, and ****, it's commander in chief.

I have nothing against Obama. Fine commander and chief as far as i'm concerned..

Note from GoAshe: a portion of this post was removed that was in response to the earlier trolling.