Posted on 08/19/2018 10:24:18 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
I think this sums it up pretty nicely:
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’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word is 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. 1) born in or out of a country. 2) Both parents are citizens. 3) One parent is a citizen. 4) 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 Americans. 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 the decide to ignore next?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2999448/posts?page=7#7
Like her mother, I got a degree from DELI University. I majored in Corned Beef, Salami and Bologna, the latter since I wanted a later career in politics.
Anyway you slice it, I’m qualified to be a candidate for the presidency of the United States.
I can read, write and speak English.
I was born here.
And I was educated here at Deli U.
I can “cut the mustard” with the best of them and I relish the chance to serve my country. I have soft buns but nerves of steel. Give me a chance to get America out of the pickle that it is in.
My election slogan is one that the three great philosophers, The Three Stooges, gave us - “Salami, Salami, Bolognie”.
See more SCOTUS decisions here:
U.S. Constitution Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts
Natural born Citizen and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution – The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret): http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Yeah, ask President Trump if he believes four of his five kids are ineligible to ever be president.
Is he planning to have a dynasty?
Very good presentation of the difference between Citizens under Title 8 Section 1401 or other man-made positive law, treaty, constitutional amendments, etc., grants of citizenship by positive law. In none of those positive law grants of citizenship to the USA is the term “natural born Citizen” mentioned. The reason is as you described. A “natural born Citizen” naturally does not need any man-made positive law, etc., to make or declare them a Citizen. Natural Law covered it.
Here is an essay I wrote on the founders and framers original intent, meaning, and understanding of the natural law term “natural born Citizen”. Adjectives mean something. See: Is Being a ‘Born Citizen’ of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? Founders/Framers said no! https://www.scribd.com/document/73983978/Is-Being-a-Born-Citizen-of-the-United-States-of-Sufficient-Citizenship-Status-to-be-President-Founders-Framers-said-no
Also for those here familiar with Euler Diagrams to prove the truth or fallacy of an argument see:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/299297748/Euler-Logic-Diagram-Shows-Logical-Relationship-of-natural-born-Citizen-Set-and-SuperSets
bump
You can bet at a minimum that Don Jr. and Ivanka are looking towards futures in politics and I doubt either of them believes themselves ineligible. And I doubt their father believes it.
Kamala Harris is the embodiment of Cultural Marxism. That alone makes her ineligible.
Right after BO got elected, Wanda Sykes had a late night on Fox...She had come out of ONE closet but not the full fledged Liberal one...
One of her ‘gags’ was she wanted her 25 bucks back now that ‘they’ had control of the treasury..
One of her more ‘telling’ skits was she said BO had to do good because if he didn’t do VERY GOOD, it would be another 100 years before ‘WE’ would even consider a ‘Black Guy’ for Pres again.
Anyone paying attention to MD will note that for the ‘Modern Times’ the ONLY R for Gov was when a woman ‘Kennedy-Townsend’ and a Black guy were both beaten by White R’s.
Yes, Hogan is an R but cut from a Lib stripe and VERY anti ‘PDT’ but a Black former NAACP official is running against him and he is a complete whack job.
Ehrlich was ‘popular’ and had a Black LT GOV (Michael Steele)but O’Malley beat him in a runaway while his Lt Gov got beat by Hogan.
Steele went on to be RNC Chair but sort of ‘screwed the pooch’ on that one and got clobbered running for the US Senate against an opponent so weak the LIBS ‘tried’ to replace him with Bradley Manning but the he/she got clobbered also.
Pretty clear she is not a natural born citizen.
This was asked of _bama and everybody was called a racist for doing so.
Like I said get back to me when you can find a precedent that any court has accepted your opinion on the subject. Until then it’s all just that, your opinion. No matter how wordy.
The Kenyan has proven that this is an irrelevant question.
Nice analysis, commander.
Weren’t the Founding Father’s smart?
Thanks to President Trump, we narrowly escaped the consequences of having a treasonous naturalized President in office, Boobamba from Kenya, and the Founding Father anticipated this problem and ruled a naturalized citizen should not be President.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, but our
Congress and Courts act like midgets.
“There is no “constitutional definition” of a natural born citizen.”
Number one, the Constitution defines no terms whatsoever; it merely uses the legal language of that day, which is still the language of today.
Second, the Naturalization Act of 1790 directly defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.
If both immigrant parents were citizens when she was born then she is eligible. However, after the acceptance and election of one Barak Hussein Obama as President, Natural Born means essentially, born on Earth, at least until intelligent life is discovered off Earth.
By the way, I was taught in high school and by college professors that natural born meant being born of citizen parents.
Maybe Booker will make it an issue. He might campaign that it is time for an actual African American to be POTUS.Neither Barky or Harris can make that claim.
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.