Citizenship: the Last Word

American Thinker ^ | 3/13/2013 | J.R. Dunn

[Menehune56]

Considering the experience that one of its co-authors has concerning electoral matters, today's article by Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison on the eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal to run for president ought to end the matter. It won't, of course. Debates over that topic have proven not only self-perpetuating but self-generating -- every time you think they've died down for good, they flare up once again.

[SatinDoll]

As usual, you are spreading disinformation on Free Republic.

Article I, Section 1 and Clause 2; Section 3 and Clause 3, clearly state that to be a Representative or a Senator one must be a citizen.

Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Note: Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship.

Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).

The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874).

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote.

The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.

SCOTUS rejected Minor’s argument that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution, and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment.

This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.

Hodking in Minor is precedent.

In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum.

“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioner’s claim that it was simply a dictum.”

The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.

No one has the RIGHT to be President.

[rolling_stone]

we must decide who legally was Fremont's parents to determine if he was a natural born citizen. Georgia law 1813. His mother was a usc and his legal father (not divorced) was either a usc or he was deemed illegitimate thus only his mothers citizenship applied...

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

His legal father (not his biological father, Frenchman Charles Fremont) was a U.S. natural born Citizen named Major John Pryor.

[highball]

“They threw in “natural born” to distinguish presidential-eligible citizens from naturalized citizens, who were not to be eligible.”

If your reasoning is correct, “born Citizen” would have the same effect, right? Why include “natural”?

Yes, it would.

The Constitution only considers two kinds of citizenship for anyone born after its ratification: via naturalization and via birth.

If you're going to content that a little extra flourish somehow creates a whole new class of citizen, then you're going to have to point to the passage in the Constitution where they lay it out clearly, and where they define any other perks/responsibilities of that third kind of citizen. Because if you can't, the contention falls apart.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

“...a little extra flourish...”

“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. “In expounding the Constitution of the United States,” said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, “every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).”

A few more words to chew on:

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).”

“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.”

The word “natural” was put in there for a reason, otherwise they would have just said “born Citizen”.

There are no “extra little flourish[es]” in the Constitution. A “natural born Citizen” is not just a “Citizen”. There are circumstances surrounding his birth that make him different, but otherwise, he is a citizen.

You said: “The Constitution only considers two kinds of citizenship for anyone born after its ratification: via naturalization and via birth.”

Please point me to the statement in the Constitution where it says that. I seem to have missed it.

Thanks.
L-M&C

[highball]

I can show you where the Constitution specifies the two enduring kinds of citizenship; naturalized citizens and natural-born citizens (as well as the third kind, those who were already citizens at the time of ratification). That’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

If you want to pretend there’s some mythical extra kind of citizen, then I’m afraid you’re the one who needs to find it. In the text, please.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,”

What’s the difference between a natural born Citizen and a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?

Both are “Citizens”, right? What’s the difference?

I looked again at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and see no mention of “naturalized” citizens. All I see are “natural born Citizens”, and “Citizens”. Naturalized citizens were ceated later by Congress.

[highball]

What’s the difference between a natural born Citizen and a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?

Both are “Citizens”, right? What’s the difference?

The Founders gave themselves, and everyone of their generation, an exemption from the "natural born" requirement. They figured if you were already living in the US at the time the Constitution was ratified, it didn't matter where you were born. But going forward, all Presidential aspirants would need citizenship from birth.