The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part II: Shocked, Outraged or Ambivalent?

Constitutionally Speaking ^ | Oct. 26, 2009 | Linda Melin

[patlin]

What would your reaction be if you heard that Congress was set in 2007 to bestow ‘natural born’ citizenship on ALL anchor babies through their Immigration Reform legislation. (110^th Congress) S. 1348

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if you heard that Congress was moving to change Immigration & Naturalization laws so the every child born overseas to 1 citizen parent & 1 foreign parent would forever be deemed a ‘natural born’ citizen. (101^st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99^th Congress) H.R. 2535,

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if Congress had a bill waiting to come out of committee in February of 2008 that would change the citizenship laws of all children born to US parents serving in the military abroad(off US & US Territory soil) so that those children would now become natural born citizen at birth, but instead of following through with it, Congress sets the bill aside and passes a public resolution that holds one former military personnel’s citizenship in higher regard than all the others that are currently serving as if this person had some supremacy over the others. S. 2678

Shocked, Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if there was evidence of a bill introduced to Congress in 2004 to specifically change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ from what the Framers meant it to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. S. 2128

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that there have been numerous attempts to remove the words ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II of the constitution in regards to Presidential qualifications so that ALL anchor babies could someday become President, regardless if their parents are still here illegally? (93^rd Congress)HJ Res 325, HJ Res 880, HJ Res 890, HJ Res 896, HJ Res 993, HJ Res 1051, (94^th Congress) HJ Res 33, HJ Res 86 (95^th Congress) HJ Res 38 (106^th Congress) HJ Res 88 (108^th Congress) HJ Res 59, HJ Res 67, HJ Res 104 (109^th Congress) HJ Res 2,HJ Res 15, HJ Res 42

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

And what if ALL these prior efforts were retroactive to ALL children born, that are alive today in the US and abroad.

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

Of all these permanently recorded Congressional proposals, the ones that give us more in-depth testimony/summary are H.R. 1380, H.J. Res. 88, S. 2128, S. 1348 & S. 2678.

H.R. 1380 was a bill to amend the Immigration & Nationality Act to grant US national & ‘natural born’ citizen status to certain persons born outside the United States. Alexander’s bill would have granted a child born with dual nationality ‘natural born’ citizenship status and it also addressed the issue of children born to US military personnel overseas. Summing up the bill, Alexander said:

“My bill would also insert the term ‘natural born’ into section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, thus clearing up any question as to whether a child born abroad as an American citizen qualifies under the Constitution to run for President when he or she grows up.” Kennedy’s aka ‘Fast Eddie’s’ bill, S. 1348, went a bit further and it was quite clever of him to slip those 2 little yet powerful words ‘natural born’ into the bill. Reading the summary was quite laughable. This is where Kennedy tries to claim that children(anchor babies) born to nonimmigrant illegal aliens are ‘natural born’, however he does not stop there, he goes on to call adopted children of nonimmigrant illegal aliens as natural born once the aliens acquired the new Z-visa that would have been created by the immigration reform act.

In 2000, Rep. Barney, I can’t “Frank”ly understand why Ma. keeps reelecting him, introduced H.J. Res. 88, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for Office of the President a person who has been a citizen for twenty years. This is the 1^st bill introduced where we have extensive testimony on the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ before the Subcommittee of the Constitution because Barney does [n]ot favor putting obstacles on the ability of the people to choose who they wish] to elect.

Mr. Candy who is chairing the subcommittee opens by stating:

“The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.” And Mr. Candy is quite right. The qualification was put in place specifically for national security & sovereignty reasons. It was put in place to protect the citizens of the newly formed Republic from ever becoming ‘subjects’ to foreign sovereigns or an all powerful central Monarchy. Mr. Candy has done his homework and thus is the reason I believe that this never made it out of committee. However, let’s review a bit more testimony.

We shall start with the testimony from an immigrant, Balint Vazsonyi, of the Center for American Founding who immigrated in 1959.

“The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival…Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are…So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them…One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank's resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency…I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.” Continuing on about foreign influences & national security, Vazsonyi states:

“I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for…Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with…The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important…To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so…So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it.” In the Vazsonyi’s written testimony turned over to the committee, Vazsonyi further address the importance of the ‘natural born’ qualification in regards to foreign influences and national security:

“It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else…Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to ''take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Mr. Chairman, it is an incontrovertible fact that the inhabitants of most countries are not only unfamiliar with what we call the Rule of Law, but find the concept virtually incomprehensible. Again, it is a miracle that so many immigrants are able to operate within the American system of laws, contracts, and agreements on a handshake…Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America…Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times.” Another to testify and submit written testimony was Forrest McDonald, historian and professor of history at the U of Alabama. McDonald starts out by agreeing with Chairman Candy then goes on to cite supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his testimony:

“Debates about electing the President raged until early September, less than 2 weeks before the Convention adjourned. Then Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate, came up with a cumbersome plan that overcame the objections to all earlier proposals. This was the electoral college system. The system was so diffuse that it would be virtually impossible, given the primitive communications then available, for foreign agents to corrupt it. But for good measure Butler's proposal included the restrictive language, ''no person except a natural-born citizen…To appreciate the significance of the Constitution's restriction of presidential eligibility to natural born citizens, it is useful to place the requirement in historical perspective. Americans of the founding generation were extremely distrustful of executive authority because experience with colonial governors had convinced them that executive power was inherently inimical to liberty, because they felt betrayed by George III, and because they considered a strong executive to be incompatible with the republicanism they embraced when they declared their independence in 1776. As a consequence, their revolutionary state constitutions provided minimal executive branches, and the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, established no executive arm…By the time the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, difficulties undergone during and after the war for independence had convinced most public spirited men that an energetic national executive was necessary, but they approached the problem cautiously, and at least a third of the delegates to the Convention favored a plural executive in the interest of safety. The others endorsed a single executive, not least because all understood that George Washington, whom everybody trusted, would be the first occupant of the office…But Washington could not serve forever, and the delegates groped almost desperately to devise a suitable way of choosing his successors. The search took up more of the debates than any other subject the Convention faced. Most delegates favored having Congress elect the president, but that would make the executive department dependent upon the legislative unless the president were ineligible for reelection, but ineligibility would necessitate a dangerously long term—six or seven years being the common suggestion. The greatest fear was of corrupt influences upon the election, particularly from abroad…That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice, nor did anyone speak in its support. Its meaning and rationale went without saying. As Joseph Storey later explained in his famous commentaries, the phraseology ''cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office and interposes a barrier against . . . corrupt interferences of foreign governments…Now, the question before the subcommittee is not the original purpose of the clause, but whether it has outlived its usefulness. The circumstances that prevailed at the time of the founding have changed. Yet it seems to me on balance that conditions in the foreseeable future warrant a continuation of the caution shown by the framers…Take the matter of the possible corruption in the electoral process. The system is still structurally diffuse, but in practice it might as well be centralized, given modern techniques of communication and the instant portability of money, the most potent corrupting influence. Presidential candidates spend scores of millions of dollars. Just consider the prospective influence of a few billion dollars, a sum well within the means of a number of countries, any one of which, while unwilling to risk such a sum on a natural-born American, might be eager to support a candidate who had been born and raised in their country…The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak Presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of Presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable is the President's power as Commander in Chief…Let us consider a few scenarios, starting with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of some countries have occasionally employed agents under deep cover who might not be activated for decades. It is not difficult to imagine such an agent being elected to an office of trust, but a Senator is 1 of 100, and a Representative is 1 of 435. What check is there on a President who is 1 of 1, except for the constitutional restriction?... In the role of Commander in Chief, it is not enough to be above reproach. One must be above the suspicion of reproach…In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom.” Of course the committee heard from 2 other witnesses for the progressive view; one for adoptive parents of foreign children and the other a civil rights activist for immigrants. You are welcome to read their bloviating testimony online as it is not relevant to defining ‘natural born’.

After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in 2004, a bill to define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that:

“There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means. And then concludes by stating:

“This bill ensures that children born abroad to or adopted by American parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream…they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president.” I was taken aback by Nickles proclamation that Congress had never defined ‘natural born citizen’. Had he just gone to the congressional records from 1866, when the 14^th Amendment was drafted and subsequently ratified, he would have found this from Rep. John A. Bingham:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen” And yet again repeating myself, we know that the term ‘natural born citizen’ exists exclusively in one place in the Constitution itself. Article II, Section I, Clause V:

“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.” Sen. Inhofe made note of the repealed Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1790 as some sort of fact that Congress had defined what ‘natural born’ meant, as if it has always pertained to naturalized citizens or citizens by statute, and uses the argument that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress, per the 1790 Act, has the authority to make such interpretation. And let it be noted, Inhofe per his speech, is the grandfather of an internationally adopted child, thus did not have pure intentions when signing onto this bill.

There was no objection, the bill was recorded and met the same demise of all previous other attempts to alter presidential qualifications.

All these attempts, all these secret bills quietly kept out of earshot of the public at large, are verified proof that Congress has for decades been trying to usurp the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation further risking our sovereignty & national security. An agenda that Washington warned about in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests… Part I: The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

Part III: the conclusion. I purposely held back the review & summary of S. 2678 as it pertains directly to S. Res. 511 and including it here would spill the beans so to speak. But rest assured, it will be published no later than Thursday evening.

[patlin]

The military should be considered the same as ambassadors in the law

I agree 100% as long as BOTH parents are US citizens at the time the child is born.

[originalbuckeye]

Agree. And if his father was Davis, then he’s an American anyway.

[The Mayor]

bookmark

[tophat9000]

Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that:

“There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means.

before this descends into the usual shouting match with the Cruisers... about who and who is not a natural born citizen .....here's the point....

what I underlined is ....that door is open to challenge him.....that door is open to take him to court ...and if Cruz is the guy that you think he is .....that he going to try to break the DC establishment power structure .........then he will not have friends in Court.....

with Obamacare with gay marriage with the weighting of the court right now with Scalia gone ......we already know the court is bias to vote what the DC power structure wants .......they have room to rule Cruz ineligible...... and 8 years of birthers going after Obama on his birth certificate has prepared the public's mind for that kind of ruling... there will not be any kind of outrage

if DC power need to remove Cruz via a Supreme Court ruling he not and NBC ..they will.... if the Dem just want to remove Cruz to open the door to Hillary via a US Supreme Court ruling he not an NBC. They will

but they with "sandbag" this up until the point Cruz is done doing there dirty work (wittingly or unwittingly) ...and right now that dirty work is blocking Trump ....then they pulled the plug on Cruz... when they when it hurts the most ....when the pots the biggest payout

[nesnah]

“natural born Citizen”, natural, not of mans’law, statute, precedent, obvious, not under question.

[patlin]

then they pulled the plug on Cruz... when they when it hurts the most ....when the pots the biggest payout

AKA... A CONTESTED CONVENTION... so it is no wonder they have been beating this drum for weeks now!!!

[Bubba Gump Shrimp]

-—“natural born Citizen”, natural, not of mans’law, statute, precedent, obvious, not under question.
.
.
.
Are you sure? When I met my wife she was a brunette, then miraculously sometime in the mid 80’s she became blonde overnight, and insists to this day that she is “natural blonde”

:)

... and I agree with your definition. The founders used simple wording, that would NOT need a Harvard Lawyer to interpret on purpose.

It is only later, when lawyers and those with their own agenda do things become muddled.

Cruze will never get my vote, because the founders did not mean Chinese-Born / Russian-Born / Mexican-Born or Canadian-Born when they said “Natural Born”. Of that I am certain, and it will set precedence (you know the kind that Supreme Court Scholar Cruz knows all about), allowing nearly everyone to become POTUS, regardless of where they were born or raised.

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes.

-PJ

[Robert DeLong]

Actually Congress just chose to remain silent for fear of being called racist.

[GingisK]

...some of us are not ready to give up the fight...

Two or three of us won't be enough. The Sheeple don't seem to care enough to get off their collective butts.

[tophat9000]

well of course ......who who flips his cards if he’s got a winning hand .... before the pots at its biggest... that’s just stupid.... you wait until everybody is pushed in... you wait to the last moment .....you sucker them in and then lower the Boom

I swear terms “Cruisers” and “useful idiots” are about become synonymous and interchangeable for the rest of our lives

[AllAmericanGirl44]

True

bkmk

[Spaulding]

Cruz, like McCain, was introduced as a spoiler. As his and Obama’s Con. Law professor, Larry Tribe pronounced in the Boston Globe, Cruz argued the oritinalist or conservative constitutionalist position as one of his best students. Yes, every Senator signed Senate Res 511, in which Judge and DHS Chair Chertoff pronounce the “born to parents who were citizens” requirement, and Larry repeated the jus soli - born on our soil - part of the requirement.

The strategy appears to be to define Cruz, who worked for, and currently includes, Bush family operatives at key positions on his committee. Cruz offers enough to naïve conservatives to throw a convention to the party controllers. They have already identified their likely candidate, Paul Ryan. It doesn’t matter who they chose. It simply can’t be Trump. Trump probably doesn’t have hidden treasures in Panama. He doesn’t owe anyone, as Cruz may, and Roberts appears to. Remember, from the refreshing honesty of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson, the exhaustive database containing every detail of the lives of our senior government officials. We are governed by corruption. Trump is a threat because his brand of corruption is already very public.

Cruz’ connection with Goldman Saches, with the CFR, with open boarders, the globalists with whom he grew up, are there, for those who look. He was a Canadian citizen when he became a Senator. His triple or quadruple citizenship at birth is no secret, but like Obama, neither party’s untouchables will talk talk about it. Should one of them get bold, he/she will be reminded of Georgia’s Nathan Deal, who wrote an open letter to the White House demanded by his constituents and got his answer in the form of an IRS probe and letter from the Congressional Ethics committee. Cruz is doing his job for the powerful private corporation known as the Republican Party.

Cruz will disappear into the money machines of global banking after his moment of usefulness. He knows, better than most, the beliefs of our founders and framers and diplomats, Paine, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay, and Justices Jay, Marshall, Waite, Gray, Hughes, Black, and 14th Amendment author Bingham. Cruz, unlike most law school graduates, may have read Vattel and Pufendorf and Bynkershoek. He knows that all of these whose ideas he once defended, lauded, know Cruz cannot be a Constitutional president, unless we accept that the Constitution, as written, and decisions of the Supreme Court may be reversed by the legislature and executive. He knows the truth. So does Tribe’s other student, Barack Obama, but Barack didn’t have to throw himself on the sword of history by lying about his citizenship status.

Obama correctly defined himself as “native-born”, but never a natural born citizen. Native-born comes from the language of the 14th Amendment meaning born on our soil. He knew his alien father violated the constitution, but Barack, like Larry Tribe, told us he doesn’t regard the Constitution as current law. He subscribes, like Larry, to a “Living Constitution”. He told us long before he was “made” president, that to valid he wanted to add a block of positive rights, as FDR told us he wished to do.

[DiogenesLamp]

What would your reaction be if you heard that Congress was set in 2007 to bestow ‘natural born’ citizenship on ALL anchor babies through their Immigration Reform legislation. (110th Congress) S. 1348

I would say that "that is beyond their power." Man cannot make something "natural".

[Terry L Smith]

dear patlin,

I agree with your summation.

[patlin]

Native-born comes from the language of the 14th Amendment meaning born on our soil

And that is why James Kent so rightly wrote in his treatises on the Constitution and American Law that while all born on the soil are natives, not all natives are natural born citizens.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

So Congress can change the meanings of words in the Constitution... Who knew?

[Cboldt]

-- So Congress can change the meanings of words in the Constitution... Who knew? --

Everybody who's been paying attention. Courts do the same thing, subvert the constitution that is.

[Mastador1]

Why McConnell refused to bring a resolution on behalf of Ted Cruz... They ALL know the truth, including Cruz, the Senate AND House records are testimony to the fact that Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally qualified to be president.

Actually, from the dates I see on these Bills, they would most certainly seem to intended to benefit nobama, but of course in bizarro world they trying to put the fix in for Cruz a decade before he would even run for the Senate........some damn fine pre planning there!

[patlin]

The dates of the bills range from 1973 to 2008, so no, they were not meant for Obama, they were meant for the globalization of the US and the destruction of our national sovereignty that resides in the citizenry at large. Destroy the constitutional meaning of citizenship, destroy sovereignty and then we are all ‘globalists’ now.