Replies

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any other part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

Born in or out of a country.
Both parents are citizens.
One parent is a citizen.
Neither parent is a citizen.

The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable". The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320?
CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'. Jindal and Rubio are not NBC's either as described above.

nice pretzel logic.

Example 1: cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any other part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant

That sounds nice, but clearly that is contradicted by much of our history, and clearly invalidates the notion of precedent.

Example 2: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Now by your own standard above, separating citizens on the basis you advocate violates THESE very words, or makes them irrelevant.

Example 3: Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten.

Really? So you're going to hold every written word relevant to an unwritten standard? Didn't the Founders include - IN WRITING - the applicable natural law? Again, you tie yourself in non sequitur pretzels.....

Example 4: They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

Now this is just straw argument, false choice. It is not a situation of anyone ignoring anything - it's a case of your interpretation being different from most conservative legal Constitutional scholars. Sorry, you cannot claim the legal high ground here. You simply have an opinion. The other side has an opinion.

I could go on, but I violated two of my rules already - A: ignoring long posts...brevity is the soul of wit....your post did not measure up.

B: Responding with long posts: I never do this, and I could go on and on....but already violated two self imposed rules.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment doesn’t invalidate Article II, Section 1, it further defines it.

Who is it that gets to interpret and enforce natural law when there is a conflict?

The NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”

Just like it was for Barack Obama, it will be up to the governments of the states, the local, state and federal judiciary, and Congress to rule on a case by case basis on the eligibility of any particular candidate.

Nope. Wrong. Birther rationalization isn’t law.