Replies

Does the Congress have the authority to alter the language of the Constitution through the common legislation process? No. All language of the Constitution retains its "original intent" understanding of the common man at the time it was penned and onward until such time as the Amendment process is exercised to alter it.

Was the phrase "natural born citizen" used in the Constitution? Yes. And as such, it too retains the understanding conveyed to the common man at the time it was penned.

Does the Congress have the authority to define citizenship through the common legislation process? Yes. The Constitution empowers the Congress to provide uniform rules of naturalization to define who can and cannot, who is and is not, a citizen.

Can the Congress bestow citizenship at birth. Yes. And, it has done so granting undeniable citizenship, for example, to anchor babies without the need for naturalization proceedings.

Are the recipients of this form of birthright citizenship "natural born citizens"? No. They are "naturalized by statute at birth" as Congress does not have the authority to alter the original definition of "natural born citizen" without undertaking the Amendment process.

And at the time the constitution was written, women were lesser citizens than men (could not vote for example) and the framers never would have taken the mother’s US citizenship alone to bestow upon a child born abroad.

“All language of the Constitution retains its “original intent” understanding of the common man at the time it was penned and onward until such time as the Amendment process is exercised to alter it.”

My point was that the original understanding of NBS included that it could be altered by legislative body, as it had been during the 400 years prior to the Constitution.

All language of the Constitution retains its "original intent" understanding of the common man at the time it was penned and onward until such time as the Amendment process is exercised to alter it.

False. "Arms" as understood in 1776 did NOT include my two semi-auto pistols (Smith & Wesson & Glock). Therefore, according to your logic, we need a Constitutional amendment for me to own the weapons I do, because the 1788 understanding of "Arms" did not include these specific weapons. Which of course is nonsense.

Similarly, natural born citizen is not codified in the Constitution. It is presumed to be understood as the acquisition of citizenship that did not require statutory naturalization. That would apply to naturalization at birth ("anchor babies") as distinct from acquiring citizenship naturally at birth, by heredity of the parental status.

So if we argue that the working definition of "natural born citizen" in 1788 denied the God-given natural right of a woman to transfer citizenship by heredity, such that even though the Constitution didn't actually say that, we still have to treat the informal, uncodified definition as a binding restriction, why not the same sense of binding restriction for the informal, uncodified definition of "arms?"

Someone might then argue, OK, assuming we do have an ambiguity, why not wait to act in those less certain areas until after an amendment clarifies the ambiguity? Because that is not how the process works. After the Bill of Rights, most amendments were ex post facto codifications of definitional shifts that had already occurred. FDR walks through an open constitutional door and gets a lifetime presidency, and we turn around and close the door behind him, limiting the presidency to two terms. Same sort of thing with the repeal of Temperance. I can even foresee a day when the Second Amendment might be modified to prohibit the private ownership of tactical nuclear weapons, probably after someone legally acquired one and blew up, say, Detroit.

So in terms of both practical law and the ideal of natural rights, Ted Cruz is on the high ground. The attacks on his citizenship are not protective of constitutional principles. The expression "natural born citizen" was never codified in any binding form, and the lack of a precise meaning is evident in the line of cases that try to work with the concept. However, in none of those cases is there discovered a hard, constitutional boundary prohibiting transference of citizen status from mother to child. (BTW, the one time a statutory limitation briefly appeared, the 1790 Naturalization Act, it was quickly removed in the successor act, 1795, probably because they realized they couldn't mix principles of statutory and natural citizenship). Instead, the final holding of the case law seems to always come down, as near as I can remember, to some other basis in law or fact.

In other words, pack SCOTUS with nine puritanical originalists and they still will not be able to rule against the right of Ted Cruz to run for President.

Bottom line, Trump has flip-flopped on this with a view to damaging Cruz in Iowa, which Trump really does need to keep his winner image in tact. His whole campaign is predicated on that PR meme of Trump being the ultimate winner. Put a crack in that, and the whole structure becomes unstable.

Peace,

SR