 |
 _  |
 |
Posted on 01/16/2019 7:05:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
A Lesson from History. Is Being a ‘Born Citizen’ (aka Born a Citizen) of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! One needs to be a ‘natural born Citizen’. Adjectives mean something, especially in our Constitution!
(Excerpt) Read more at cdrkerchner.wordpress.com ...
|
_ |
|
Before your time at FR.
Euler Diagram proves the fallacy of the argument that simply being “born a Citizen” of the United States is identically the same as the constitutional term “natural born Citizen”. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/
Senator Kamala Harris in not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States: https://www.scribd.com/document/385966818/Senator-Kamala-Harris-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-USA-to-Constitutional-Standards
Reliance on positive law (USC 8) over natural law {which is what the ‘born a Citizen’ argument boils down to} is not a good stand to take, but you can’t fix stupid.
The founders specifically rejected “born a citizen”.
Natural born citizen was chosen as more restrictive precisely to exclude the children of foreign national who are born with divided loyalties, allegiances and citizenship.
Anyone born with more than ONE nationality is NOT NATURALLY a citizen.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Sorry, but Vattel did NOT use the term NBC. He used the term “indigenes”, which is both an English and a French word with the same meaning in each - an indigenous person. The first time NBC was connected to Vattel was in an American translation made 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was written.
Natural born citizen was simply an update of “Natural Born Subject” - a term long used and well known to the Framers. In fact, before the revolution, they wrote to King George and called themselves natural born subjects.
The Mass legislature used NBS and NBC interchangeably:
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
And the US Supreme Court has already said the term NBC is rooted in English Common Law:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” - Wong Kim Ark
The courts ruled against us (US) “Do Not Have Standing”.
Your whole argument is IRRELEVANT as the Congress has the exclusive and enumerated power to establish the uniform rule(s) of naturalization. That includes who is a natural born citizen and who is not.
If you want change, change Congress or get Congress to change the laws
Ted Cruz?
You left out a word in Vattel’s legal treatise definition of “natural born Citizen” — naturels. Naturels was a term translated in treaty negotiating letters in French to the founders which they translated to American English as “natural born” ... and after which Vattel clearly defined who the “naturels” were in his Natural Law treatise ... children born in the country of parents who were citizens. I think you did that on purpose. Hmmh, wonder why ... Convenient omissions in the arguments to down play the influence of Vattel’s writings on the founders and framers contemporaneously with the American Revolution. Read these articles for more historical and contemporary legal treatise sources of the meaning and understanding of the constitutional presidential and commander in chief eligibility requirement - “natural born Citizen”: https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
Direct list to the collection of historical and other articles on the intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” as it was used by the founders and framers: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards
Direct list to the collection of historical and other articles on the intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” as it was used by the founders and framers: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards
The constitution describes;
1) natural born citizens,
2) naturalized citizens,
3) and aliens.
There is no other class of super citizens.
If you gain citizenship by birth, you are eligible. If you had to be naturalized you are not. If you are an alien you are not. And nobody until the 1960s started defining anchor babies as gaining citizenship by birth. That is the problem.
If two people come here legally, and then become naturalized citizens, their child born afterwards will be NBC.
Wake me when the first court, anywhere in the USA, keeps a US-born person off the ballot based on “NBC” theories.
Never going to happen. Complete waste of time.
You are correct that they ruled we the people do not have standing to stand for the Constitution.
They never ruled on the merits.
Senator Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to a Cuban citizen father is definitely not constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief, or VP. Ted Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. His basic citizenship would have been obtained only under U.S. statutory naturalization laws enacted by Congress, not Natural Law. The adjective “natural” means something very specific in legal terms. Look up the term “natural” in a legal dictionary. It is something not created my man, i.e., in the case of citizenship it would be a Citizen not created by any man-made law, treaty, or act. Others other than Ted Cruz who are frequently mentioned for high national office are also not eligible. Here is a list of some: http://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S
The Constitution differentiates natural born citizen from citizen in Art. II Sec 1
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
You don’t get to adopt your own definition of Natural Born Citizen. Since the Constitution was silent on that point, such a clarification can only come from an opinion by the Supreme Court or by an amendment to the Constitution itself. The courts have made it clear that they do not want to weigh in on this issue, they prefer for the voters to decide.
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.