Posted on 02/27/2015 8:41:40 PM PST by Signalman
Again, moot point. If Barack Hussein Mohammad Obama, Junior can serve two terms as chief magistrate, then Ted Cruz, Chester Arthur, John McCain and any number of other people are therefore qualified to be president. You can’t say “well, this man is a Democrat and partially black, and making history, therefore we won’t say anything, but now along comes a man that we don’t like, so therefore the gate must be closed again.” Nope, the gate is ajar and the hinges are broken off. It is clear to anyone with an IQ above 60 that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii; he has said so, his grandmother said so, the Kenyan government has said so and so has his publisher and press agent. He was born in Kenya, which is just as much a foreign country as Canada is. The horses are out of the barn. I don’t want to hear any more bull$#*+ about Ted Cruz not qualifying. That ship sailed in 2008.
, it is at least plausible (I think most likely) that they meant to invoke the definition of Vattel’s “naturels” which he defines in his Law of Nations as those born in that country of which their parents were citizens.
Given the English translation of Vattel that renders "naturels" as "natural born citizen" wasn't published until 1796 (nine years after the Convention), I think that unlikely. Between 1776 and 1787, we can observe many instances where "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used in the new nation interchangeably. I think it highly implausible that come 1787 the Framers chose "natural born citizen" and did so with a meaning different from its common law counterpart, especially in the absence of any discussion that is what they were doing.
On this point many will counter that the framers had perhaps instead meant to invoke the idea behind British legal scholar Blackstone’s “Natural Born Subject” which was broader.
Given that Blackstone was in this period the second most quoted political writer among the Founders and Framers (Vattel being somewhere around 30th), and given Blackstone was THE authority on the common law, I think it's impossible to disregard the common law original of "natural born citizen." In any case, the U.S. Supreme Court has analyzed this and indicated explicitly "NBC" derives from "NBS," so from a legal/Constitutional perspective, the question is answered.
One of the key factors in support of reading Vattel’s meaning in Article II is the fact that in Minor v. Happersett, the supreme court’s decision specifically connected the term “natural born citizen” with the meaning found in Vattel.
Except that Justice Waite begins the passage which Vattel enthusiasts love with "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar . . ." Vattel was NOT an expositor of the common law; he was a writer from the European continent outside the common law tradition. So we can know from Waite's wording that he didn't have Vattel in mind.
Thus it seems very reasonable to interpret the earliest and perhaps most prominent time when natural born citizenship was contemplated by the Supreme Court as declaring the exact meaning Vattel had in mind.
Minor was a voting rights case, not a citizenship case. Twenty-three years after Minor the Supreme Court had a true citizenship case before it (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) and expressly rejected the claim made by the U.S. Government (and the dissenting Justices) that Vattel's definition controlled, making abundantly clear that "natural born citizen" derives from the common law "natural born subject," not Vattel.
In further support of Vattel’s defininition is the fact that “Law of Nations” is capitalized in Article I Section 8, Clause 10:
“The Congress shall have Power To ...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations....”
Thank you. That is exactly what I want our Congress &/or SCOTUS to do - definitively and finally. It is their job, not mine.
From what little I know about human psychology and ego, it's hard for me to believe that the Founding Fathers, who had just put it all on the line in a life or death struggle to establish this country, would have the President, with 1/3 the power of the government and leader of the military, be anything less than a full blooded citizen under any known criteria.
I believe they called someone with the most pure citizenship a "Natural Born Citizen" and it was their desire that the President be a pure American, a Natural Born Citizen of America, with no diluted citizenship or allegiance, as they understood and defined allegiance.
Otoh, it is much easier for me to understand why people would choose to take what was intended to be a pure standard and water it down to an "anything goes" standard.
If you can't change the words, such as with "marriage" or with the words in the Constitution or even in the Bible, then change the meaning of the words.
Unfortunately, we degrade and dilute ourselves one definition at a time to a time when we will call good evil and evil good.
We would do better to strengthen our definitions and defend them, but that's not the time we live in apparently.
Sad it's happening on our watch, but it is what it is...depending on what your meaning of "is" is.
There have been nineteen court and state election board rulings finding that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. There has been no ruling finding that he does not qualify as a natural born citizen.
Here are exceprts from four of those court rulings:
Voeltz v. Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).” February 3, 2012
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
By information I have as well as millions of others Cruz was not born in the US and one parent i.e. his father was not a US citizen. I know of no information that puts in cases of both parents a mother’s citizenship above the father’s or visa versa.
Senator Cruz’s father became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. There is no distinction in law between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.
Here is the relevant section of current US law:
8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”
There is a distinction up front in the Constitution as to ‘natural born citizen’ citizen for POTUSA and ‘citizen’ for Congresspersons. My brother, killed in the battle for Okinawa, and I, served in WWII on Leyte, were born as ‘citizens’ of the US in the US. Parents, were not citizens of the US. I never through years of reviewing my status had any reason to believe that I or my brother were “natural born’ citizens, instead just plain ordinary citizens. The code words you address notes specifically just plain ‘citizens’. There is a distinction contrary to your claim.
If you or anyone else can convince a judge, a jury or a majority in Congress of that distinction, more power to you.
In 1884 the Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that a Citizen of the United States At Birth is a natural born citizen and no subsequent ruling or law passed by Congress has changed that.
Here only two types of citizen are recognized.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
There are just two possibilities, a citizen by nature and a citizen by law. A citizen by nature does not need a law to establish citizenship; they are citizens naturally. But you cite a law to establish natural born status. Consider the child of a foreign diplomat born on American soil. Not only are they not a natural born citizen, they are not even citizens because of their father’s job. They are excluded by law. Can a natural born citizen by denied NBC status by law?
No wonder the congress and the courts don’t commit, the law of nature is not subject to the laws of Congress. Can we amend the constitution by editing the dictionary?
Who is it gets to decide how to apply natural law in any particular instance?
For example, Barack Obama thinks that he is a citizen by nature while others think that he isn’t. Who makes the final call?
Short of mandating paternity tests and DNA analysis, are we ever sure that the person listed on a birth certifcate is the natural father?
To use Barack Obama as an example again, there are those who believe that Dunham family friend Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s natural father. Frank Marshall Davis was born in Kansas as was Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother. If Davis is the real father and Dunham is the real mother and Hawaii is the real birthplace then Obama is a born citizen by nature.
There are legitimate and constitutional reasons why both Barack Obama has been and Ted Cruz most likely will be deemed by the courts and by Congress (which has the power to decertify electors) as eligible. It does not have to be a “two wrongs make a right” situation.
In 1874 the Supreme Court ruled in Minor v Happersett that: “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”
“Elsewhere” turned out to be the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and the 1898 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court ruled in that instance that: “[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Since 1898 we have had a definitive Supreme Court ruling stating that a 14th Amendment Citizen of the United States At Birth is also an Article II, Section 1 natural born citizen.
The current Supreme Court does not have four Justices who take issue with that precedent. Four Justices must concur for an appeal to be heard by the full Court.
Certainly many Americans disagree with the constitutional interpretation mentioned above, but to date they have not been able to find originalist-textualist constitutional attorneys of note and reputation to take up the cause. And yes, the reputations of the attorneys submitting briefs and arguing appeals before the Supreme Court matter in whether an appeal is granted a hearing or not.
No where does the Constitution define “natural born” citizen, so this is a point that can only be ‘defined’ by the fact that you can only become a U.S. “citizen” by ONLY, and ONLY, one of two ways.....
- Natural Born
or
- Naturalized
How difficult can that be for anyone to understand????
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
The Constitution is so last century.
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.