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 ...
The Constitution is silent on this issue. The First Congress was not, and their definitions were not objected to by the several Constitutional founders who also served in the First Congress. You are asserting that we really have three classes of citizens: those who are citizens at birth who were born in the United States to some magically number (not defined) of parents; those who are citizens at birth as defined by Act of Congress who are not required to stand before some judicial process; and those who may become citizens some time after their birth through judicial process and from which they receive a certificate from the government. I don't think that this is correct.
You don’t interpret the Constitution.
“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirt manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
> “1) Separate Cruz from the discussion”
The only reason this thread is getting the attention it is getting is because of the slugfest between Donald and Ted.
> “2) Naturalization acts can, do, and have, conferred citizenship at birth.”
Did I say any different?
I don’t think those defending Cruz on this realize the danger. An Islamic terrorists could live in the U.S. marry, take his bride back to Syria wherever, have a child and raise that kid as a terrorist.
Then the child would qualify as natural born? Could run for President? Ok, Obama aside because we all know what he is.
> You are asserting that we really have three classes of citizens: those who are citizens at birth who were born in the United States to some magically number (not defined) of parents; those who are citizens at birth as defined by Act of Congress who are not required to stand before some judicial process; and those who may become citizens some time after their birth through judicial process and from which they receive a certificate from the government. I don’t think that this is correct.
Let’s unpack that.
You are asserting that we really have three classes of citizens:
1) those who are citizens at birth who were born in the United States to some magically number (not defined) of parents;
2) those who are citizens at birth as defined by Act of Congress who are not required to stand before some judicial process;
3) those who may become citizens some time after their birth through judicial process and from which they receive a certificate from the government.
2 & 3 are naturalized citizens.
It doesn't really matter how many (other than for sure it is more than each general public awareness), most will be dismissed procedurally. I was further observing that there are many of them, and any one of them is an opportunity for Cruz to belay asking for dismissal on procedural grounds.
Candidates have standing to sue each other - but courts can find other ways to dodge the issue.
ll persons born or naturalized In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. A person born in a foreign country out of the Jurisdiction of the United States whose father is not a citizen of the United States can only become a citizen by naturalization.
North Noonday Min Co T Orient M Co US l Fed 522 527, The Federal Reporter, page 527
Thanks for researching this..This certainly adds clarity to the discussion..well done.
The other thing many Cruz supporter overlook is that with dual-citizens the other country that they hold citizenship in could have legal claims on them. Even if they renounce.
AND they overlook that many of us here started this research years ago, waaaaay before Cruz was even on the horizon. They accuse us of being Trump-ops for petes sake.
President Trump would certainly have the current illegal in the WH investigated, Cruz wouldn’t for obvious reasons.
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...
___
If natural born citizen and citizen are considered the same thing for eligibility purposes, then why did the founders add the words natural born?
No I think the key word there is “potentially”. If someone becomes a dual citizen after they were born, that’s a public fact, and the public can make its own determination about that. But if someone was acquired the rights of citizenship by birth, it could be latent, and never exercised publicly until it was too late to do anything about it. I don’t think they were worried about a known loyal British subject becoming President, they were worried about an apparent American with secret loyalties to the crown.
I think the difficulty with your formulation is that you’ve now placed a constitutional requirement in the hands of a bureaucrat. What’s to say that some bureaucrat somewhere doesn’t start granting citizenship to children of Saudi princes wherever they might be born, and they then buy their way into the Presidency?
There’s also not a bright line between naturalization and citizen at birth by statute. Cruz for example would not have been a citizen at birth at the time of the Founding, nor at any time in the history of the U.S. before 1953, when a naturalization act was passed that covered his circumstance. Can Congress change a constitutional requirement whenever it wants?
Depends on how you look at it. A person can renounce his US citizenship, and a person can acquire mixed allegiance by various means. The circumstance of birth does not dictate how we run the rest of our lives.
The consitution takes a snapshot - are you a NBC at birth. The label is permanently affixed, even if a person renounces US citizenship. They were a NBC of the US, and are now a citizen of another country.
Wasn’t there an emergency appeal or ? for the SC to hear the Bush/Gore Florida stuff? Don’t really know what to call it but it is rare. However, with the history they have concerning their denial of the Obama cases due to no standing I guess nothing would surprise me. I kinda look at this for Cruz like having a tooth cavity, the longer it goes the worse it gets. Find out as soon as possible one way or another.
If the SC decided against him, pay back the donations and go back to DC to be a senator.
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
So if both the President and the Vice President were from the same State, the Congress could count the votes of Electors from that state for both? I know the Constitution (Amendment 12) says: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; ....”, but what if there was a controversy on what “Inhabitant” means in terms of a particular person. Is Donald Trump and inhabitant of New York or Florida? If Donald Picked Marco Rubio could Electors from Florida vote for both? Who would decide this other than the Congress?
The 1790 act defines a legal fiction. It says the law will pretend that a person born abroad was born in the US.
No, it's not. What is the authority granted to Congress? Naturalization. The end
----
The First Congress was not, and their definitions were not objected to by the several Constitutional founders who also served in the First Congress.
That's right - because the First Congress was defining the 'at the time of the adoption of this Constitution' window that was the exception to the *natural born* clause.
The children of the citizens naturalized under the 1790 act were to be considered AS natural born, just as the people naturalized under the act were entitled TO be treated as natural born.
And in 1795 it changed to - shall be considered as citizens of the United States, effectively closing the 'at the time of the adoption' window language in the previous act.
That's why the clause reads -No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.
---
You are asserting that we really have three classes of citizens
I'm doing no such thing. There are two kinds - natural born and naturalized. If you'll look at you're own post, you'll see the latter two of your examples BOTH involve the intervention of some branch of government:
those who are citizens at birth as defined by Act of Congress who are not required to stand before some judicial process;
and those who may become citizens some time after their birth through judicial process and from which they receive a certificate from the government.
Thus these citizens are NOT natural born, but naturalized.
Please see post #79.
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.