Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tau Food; WhiskeyX
This is called natural law. Absolutely wrong!

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 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.

  1. 1. Born in or out of a country.
  2. 2. Both parents are citizens.
  3. 3. One parent is a citizen.
  4. 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 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'.

18 posted on 08/25/2013 8:40:13 AM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: GregNH
Oh? And, who decides whether a candidate is a natural born citizen?

You - -
or the electors who choose our presidents. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)

22 posted on 08/25/2013 8:48:14 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: GregNH
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".

I hardly noticed your vicious attack on natural law.

You can plant an apple tree in the middle of an orchard of oranges and it will still produce only apples, not oranges. That is the nature of an apple tree, and it is unchangeable.

Of course, the same goes for people. Ted Cruz's mother was an American citizen made in the USA. Even in the middle of a Canadian orchard, she could produce only a thoroughly American son.

Ted Cruz - 2016

24 posted on 08/25/2013 8:54:29 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: GregNH
Cut and paste without giving attribution much?

Try using your own words instead of repeating somebody else's. There are reasons to do that.

30 posted on 08/25/2013 9:08:10 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: GregNH

Beautiful analysis.

As a Kid I remember my Dad talking about natural law and the founders. My Dad is a history buff. A walking encyclopedia.


53 posted on 08/25/2013 6:23:42 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: GregNH

Always clear, you say...what about John McCain?


79 posted on 08/26/2013 9:55:40 AM PDT by gogeo (I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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