Posted on 01/22/2016 7:58:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The recent controversy over the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the office of the Presidency is one of those conundrums embedded in the U.S. Constitution. That august document is full of ambiguous words and phrases that challenge even the strictest and most principled interpreters. The phrase "natural born citizen" could mean any number of things. For example, at the time of birth:
1. At least one parent is a U.S. citizen.
2. Both parents are U.S. citizens.
3. The birth occurs in a state of the United States.
4. The birth occurs in a state of the United States or in a territory thereof.
There is truly unanimous agreement that if both 2 and 3 are satisfied, there is no question that the child is a "natural born" citizen. In the early days of the Republic, the parental requirement was interpreted as patrimonial. Of course at that time, citizenship was restricted to "free white persons," but a combination of the Fourteenth Amendment and various statutes have eliminated the gender issue and nowadays. I have never heard anyone try to distinguish between 1 and 2, so let us stipulate that 1 and 3 together are enough. It is nearly universally accepted that 4 is as good as 3.
That leaves us with 1 and 4 together as being sufficient for "natural born" citizenship. Beyond that, if neither parent is a citizen nor does the birth occur inside American territory, nobody would suggest that the person is a "natural born" citizen. I apologize for the preceding rather pedantic discussion, but I want to have absolute clarity on the key question. That question is:
"Does either having one American parent or suitable geographic location by itself qualify?"
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’d like to think you are interested in serious discussion and have been proceeding on that basis. Insisting that “at the time of adoption” is ambiguous and refers to all times after the adoption makes it impossible to believe you are interested in serious discussion.
RE: I’ve explained.
Please cite for me the post number where you’ve done this.
136
We’re done. Enjoy your day.
RE: Insisting that “at the time of adoption” is ambiguous and refers to all times after the adoption makes it impossible to believe
It begs the question as tio WHY it is impossible to believe.
I ask myself the question — why would the framers write a constitution intended to be for the country and its posterity and then put down a one-shot clause that will not apply to Americans later?
I believe that is a valid question.
RE: We’re done. Enjoy your day.
Thanks for the discussion. If you can dig up an explanation made by the framers in the past that REALLY explains what they had in mind, please ping me and I’ll post it here for everyone else’s edification.
Thanks in advance.
No Person except
a natural born Citizen,
or
a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President;
Your infantile trolling is boring. Good day.
"by birth" is a statement that the circumstances of birth, without resort to an Act of Congress, are such that the child is a citizen
The "by birth" label is shorthand that invokes the relevant legal authority. In the US, that legal authority is the US constitution.
A person who is a citizen by birth is also a citizen at birth. Not all citizens at birth are citizens by birth.
That's the distinction customarily followed, but I'm sure there are writings that use "by birth" and "at birth" erroneously. A more precise and reliable way to talk about the issue is to use phrases such as "citizenship depends on an Act of Congress," or "citizenship as defined in the constitution without referring to an Act of Congress."
The constitution establishes the nation, and says who its citizens will be. Naturalization Acts of Congress can increase the number of citizens, and all of these additions are naturalized pursuant to a power granted to Congress by the constitution.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the gusto laugh!
I’ve been so distraught over the love affair with some on this list and Donald Trump that I walk away from reading in tears.
For once I will walk away full of laughter....
You are welcome. Don’t forget to tip the waitresses.
RE: Your infantile trolling is boring. Good day.
You just copied and pasted Article II section 1 of the constitution, which anyone can find.
I wonder why you would resort to this hostile tone even AFTER you already said good day.... it looks like you want to come back for more discussions. I’m game.
If I did not understand English, would you even understand what I wrote?
Let’s be honest about how the issue stands right now...
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase “natural born Citizen”, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. For those born elsewhere, there is an emerging consensus that they are also natural born citizens provided they meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at the moment of birth”, but the matter remains unsettled.
Given this fact, the next question we have to answer is this — WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SETTLE IT?
Or it could be used to differentiate between the two types of natural born - the regular kind, and the ones naturalized by and act that says who shall be considered as
---
I thought you said you are not a textualist?
Not in the sense you were trying to use it in your previous post - trying to tie 3 separate thoughts together to come to your conclusion.
---
Let’s take note that In 1784, the Maryland Legislature extended ‘all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizen’ to the Marquis de Lafayette ‘and his heirs Male forever.
We have been discussing federal acts, not state ones.
---
The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility.
What is the basis for this conjecture?
----
Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.
I've asked you to show me this one already
---
The framers could have intended the constitution to be APPLICABLE TO POSTERITY. In other words — AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION has the INTENT of “and thereafter†to it.
the words and thereafter appear in neither the Constitutional clause or the acts.
----
Absent such an argument, the understanding that anyone conceived by an American parent or who is born on American soil is a natural born citizen is PLAUSIBLE
Not if you consider the intent was to prevent foreign influence in the Presidency.
----
Is it really plausible that the founders really meant to create three categories of citizenship, natural born, citizen from birth but not natural, and non-citizen at birth but acquired later in life via “naturalization�
Look at it this way. If a natural born parent leaves the country, marries a foreigner and gives birth in another country, how CAN that child be equally natural born when only one of the three circumstances are the same?
-----
Is it really plausible that the founders really meant to create three categories of citizenship, natural born, citizen from birth but not natural, and non-citizen at birth but acquired later in life via “naturalization�
There aren't 3 different categories, there are only 2 categories - natural born and naturalized.
----
I can’t think of any other but the Courts.
See post #79. There have already been 4 Supreme Court Cases that define natural born.
----
I can’t think of any other but the Courts.
The courts that gave us the forced association of Obamacare and homosexual marriage?
Be careful what you wish for.
I have known this most of my life... I do not need Congress or a court to settle anything. If you are natural born you do have a responsibility to protect your birthright.
I an American citizen also have the responsibility to protect and defend all persons ‘natural born’ citizenship. It is the circumstance of birth. If you do not care about your birthright then do not complain when some terrorist comes claiming them self natural born because they too have one citizen parent born in some foreign country.
RE: Or it could be used to differentiate between the two types of natural born - the regular kind, and the ones naturalized by and act that says who shall be considered as
So, the word “could ‘ in the above statement implies that the issue is not settled.
It could mean one way or it could mean the other.
As I said before, there is NO CONSENSUS on this issue because the Framers did not explain it clearly.
Left with that, how do we decide today?
RE: We have been discussing federal acts, not state ones.
For me, it is a reasonable assumption to say that the understanding of the term “natural born” by a state IS NOT DISSIMILAR to the Federal understanding given that they have delegates to the Constituttional Convention.
RE: What is the basis for this conjecture?
My basis is the fact that it did not specifically mention Presidential eligibility. It was simply meant to be understood AS IS — Who is a natural born citizen?
RE: the words and thereafter appear in neither the Constitutional clause or the acts.
And because it does not, what rule in the universe tells us that it should ONLY be intended to apply once and not after the constitution was adopted?
RE: Look at it this way. If a natural born parent leaves the country, marries a foreigner and gives birth in another country, how CAN that child be equally natural born when only one of the three circumstances are the same?
Did the mother ( one of the parent ) LOSE her American citizenship by virtue of marrying a foreigner? If not, why should her citizenship not accrue to her child?
Did Ted Cruz have to actively apply to be an American Citizen when he became an adult? Or could he apply for an American passport BY RIGHT AS A CITIZEN without going through the naturalization process?
If the answer is the former, then he was a citizen when he was born.
RE: There aren’t 3 different categories, there are only 2 categories - natural born and naturalized.
Definition of Naturalization: Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities.
The question then becomes -— are the circumstances behind Cruz’s birth under the umbrella of : “approval by legal authorities.”?
RE: There have already been 4 Supreme Court Cases that define natural born.
Those Supreme Court decisions do not DIRECTLY ADDRESS the issue of the Natural born clause AS IT APPLIES to Presidential Qualification.
SEE HERE:
‘Natural Born’ Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away
The above is from the MSM which is NOT FRIENDLY to Cruz ( otherwise, they would already be publishing articles telling us he is NOT natural born ).
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers’ difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.
So it is not as simple as you say it is.
RE: The courts that gave us the forced association of Obamacare and homosexual marriage?
Be careful what you wish for.
That’s why I said — even if the courts made the decision, it isn’t going to go away.
Here’s the reality as written in the article:
The voters in each state choose electors in a manner prescribed by state legislatures. Those electors vote and the result must be certified by Congress. By this mechanism, the Constitution effectively cedes to Congress the sole power to judge the eligibility of a presidential candidate. Congress must interpret the words of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
There is no hint in the Constitution that any other branch of government or institution can reverse a Congressional decision on this point. Once Congress certifies the election, any constitutional challenge to eligibility is moot. No court would try to remove a sitting president from office. The only remaining Constitutional remedy is impeachment by the House and removal from office by the Senate as prescribed in the Constitution.
RE: I do not call myself ‘natural born’ because I was born in Germany. Yet both of my parents were/are natural born (born in the US) citizens.
Did you have to go through the naturalization process in order to receive your American Passport? If not, then you are an American Citizen when you were born.
Which to me, means you ARE a natural born American regardless of whether you think you are or not.
RE: If you do not care about your birthright then do not complain when some terrorist comes claiming them self natural born because they too have one citizen parent born in some foreign country.
Let’s put it this way, what you fear also applies to those who TRULY meet the “natural born” clause of the constitution AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
Take John Walker Lindh for example. He was born in the USA of both parents who are American Citizens. That did not stop him from leaving the USA and fighting for the Taliban.
There is NO guarantee that just because you are a natural born citizen, you will love your country.
And there is also no rule in the nature that says that a person who is not a natural born citizen will love this country any less than those who are ( this is not an endorsement of abandoning the original intent of the constitution ).
The question is not about my citizenship. I do not have a you were born in this state birth certificate. My birth certificate is a state department document, red ribbon, signed by Dean Rusk (or his auto pen) acknowledging my birth... Then I have copies of what the military produced to acknowledge my birth.... I have to go to the State Department to get another if I were ever to lose this one.
I am and was at birth an US citizen... But I was not born in the US. Which is required to be natural born. Nobody can make me or give me a ‘natural born’ stamp.. The only thing I am not eligible to have or be is president of the US....
Parents figure out if you want to pass on “natural born” to your children... Birth them in the US..
And here I thought the conservative brand was about following the original intent of the constitution... Ever heard of Esau? Well he thought so little of his birthright he sold it for a ‘red’ bowl of pottage (lentils).. God made sure he did not receive his first born blessing,,,, God did not like Esau one bit.
Of it could just be a refutation of your conclusion, not an implication of uncertainty.
---
Left with that, how do we decide today?
How about the really simlistic one. Your natural born if you have nothing else to choose
---
My basis is the fact that it did not specifically mention Presidential eligibility.
Yet one of the requirements for Presidential eligibility is that they be natural born, so there is every reason to believe it did pertain to it.
---
Did the mother ( one of the parent ) LOSE her American citizenship by virtue of marrying a foreigner? If not, why should her citizenship not accrue to her child?
Because she is not the only parent involved in the child's birth. What right does her citizenship have to subvert the sovereignty of her spouse's nation that his citizenship is derived from?
---
Did Ted Cruz have to actively apply to be an American Citizen when he became an adult?
No, he was already naturalized by statute
---
The question then becomes -— are the circumstances behind Cruz’s birth under the umbrella of : “approval by legal authorities.�
The question then becomes -— are the circumstances behind Cruz’s birth under the umbrella of : “approval by legal authorities.�
You're applying the wrong part of your definition - It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual,
----
It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual,
So it is not as simple as you say it is.
No, it is that simple. Sorry - that article is from NBC news in 2016 with no historical references whatsoever. Basically, it's meaningless.
----
For argument's sake, let's say you're right - a child born overseas to a single citizens parent is natural born.
Now let's CONTINUE that train of thought - that natural born citizen marries a foreigner and has a natural born child. Then that child marries a foreign born citizen and has a natural born child. Then THAT child marries a foreign born citizen and has a natural born child....
Ten generations down the road, you could have someone show up back in this country and run for President.
How does that square with the Founder's specified intent of preventing foreign allegiances?
Really? Are you still tilting at this windmill? I corrected you on this years ago.
In WKA, J. Gray sets out to define our Constitutional term "natural born citizen" by reference to its English common law counterpart "natural born subject." Gray summarizes ECL history as to the latter term:
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.
Then immediately following this Gray observes:
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.
This can ONLY mean (given that shortly after the Court states "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" to be "precisely analogous" terms) that the prevailing "rule" in the U.S. was that "every child born of alien parents is a 'natural born citizen.'" There is no plausible alternative reading for what he means by "the same rule."
So I and anyone who can read (including the judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals deciding the case) can see that under the WKA analysis anyone born in the U.S., even of alien parents, is a natural born citizen (excepting children of diplomats and the situation of hostile occupation).
So the Ankney opinion -- after quoting verbatim the portions I've just set forth!-- states quite correctly:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."
In other words, what Ankeny states is a straightforward read on what WKA had said.
this is acknowledged,
Nonsense.
Also, it is a state court not a federal court.
So what? The CRS research memo is making the point that the view that all native born persons are natural born citizens (save for the qualifications noted above) has been long-settled and is not disputed within the judiciary. Ankeny draws this same conclusion.
And after ignoring legislative history and examining foreign law what did J. Gray do? He said that WKA was a citizen.
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.