Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: exit82
Natural born" had a meaning in 1787. Place of birth, plus citizenship of parents, were factors in this determination.

I respectfully disagree, in part.

It's the parental citizenship that matters. The place of birth is immaterial.

The phrase 'natural-born comes from Natural Law...a.k.a. the Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel. In a nutshell, natural born citizenship is get it from your parents. If they are either a natural-born or naturalized citizen at the time of the birth of the child, the child is natural born - and it doesn't matter where the birth occurs.

I do how ever, agree the 14th does not convey natural-born citizenship.

By it's current interpretation, it splits the Original meaning of natural born into a separate type of citizenship: native born, or a naturalization-at-birth on children of aliens and foreigners.

And it is blatantly unconstitutional.

34 posted on 02/14/2013 7:23:14 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: MamaTexan; rbmillerjr

MT, Thank you for your post. I was using the Minor decision about the “in country” part.

Hope this is helpful:

In the case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), Minor, a woman, wanted to register to vote in the federal Presidential election and was denied registration because of her gender.

Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitutional framers did not define ‘natural born Citizen’ but that they did know its meaning and that it was different from ‘Citizen’ as stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of parents (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens eligible for the Presidency.

The courts decision states: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court fully understood and applied the Principles of Constitutional Construction in their decision.

The first seven Presidents were ‘Citizens’ of the United States and not ‘natural born Citizens’, yet they qualified for the office (Washington through Jackson); because they were citizens “at the time of the adoption of [the] Constitution!” These Presidents had lived through the Revolutionary War, they were patriots, loved our country at the exclusion of Great Britain, and held allegiance to our country as patriots. The founders recognized that a ‘natural born Citizen’, being born to ‘Citizen’ parents (plural) would have the same regard and love of country as these founders; at least that was their hope, prayer and intention.

The founders recognized that congress may define at any time who can become a citizen and how they become a citizen; one only need to begin reading the naturalization acts passed by congress, and include the 14th Amendment. These enactments define citizenship and naturalization of citizens but never define the eligibility requirement for President of the United States because it is already constitutionally established.

Read more:

43 posted on 02/14/2013 7:43:19 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson