Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
I shall show that the Constitution contemplates two types of Citizen: those that acquire their citizenship at birth and those who acquire their Citizenship at a later time. The first are referred to in the Constitution as 'natural born' and the second is a class of citizen not specifically named but implied and are those we consider 'naturalized citizens.'
The word 'citizen' including derivative forms appears only eleven times in the Constitution. We shall look at each instance and derive what is possible from each usage and instance. By the end, I hope to have exhaustively shown that within the 'four corners' of the Constitution, two and only two types or classes of citizen are identified or implied: citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization. There is no third subset of citizen to be differentiated from among the two classes of citizen identified or implied in the Constitution.
Instance 1: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States House of Representative. They are:
1. Age of at least 25 years
2. A citizen of the United States for at least 7 years
3. An inhabitant of the state from which elected
Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.
This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.
Instance 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States Senate. They are:
1. Age of at least 30 years
2. A citizen of the United States for at least 9 years
3. An inhabitant of the state from which elected
Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement again requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.
This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.
Instances 3 and 4: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility for service as President of the Untied States. They are:
1. Age of at least 35 years
2. A natural born citizen of the United States or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
3. Resident within the United States for at least 14 years
Notice here that a different citizenship requirement is established: in fact, two alternative requirements. We need not concern ourselves with the second, which concerns the Framer's generation and has no application to anyone alive today.
As to the first we see that the citizenship requirement has no specific requirement for its duration. Instead, it refers to a citizenship deriving from the circumstances of birth.
This is a distinctly different citizenship requirement than those for the House of Representatives or Senate. The citizenship requirements for the House of Representatives and Senate could encompass the same class of citizen contemplated by the requirement for Presidential eligibility. We do know that historically individuals have served both in the Senate and as President so the requirements cannot be mutually exclusive.
Logically, we can conclude that the citizenship requirement for eligibility to the Presidency would also be sufficient to establish eligibility for the House of Representatives and Senate.
Thus far there are two classes of citizen established or implied by the language of the Constitution: (1) a class of citizen (natural born) which is derived by the circumstances of birth and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for service as President, and (2) another class of citizenship which does not depend on the circumstances of birth and can be acquired many years after the birth of an individual and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, but not for service as President.
For clarity, going forward I will refer to these two classes of citizen as follows:
As to the first class, these are 'natural born'
As to the second class, these are 'naturalized'
This is important: Thus far there is no third class of citizenship discussed, implied or established within the four corners of the Constitution.
Instances 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Article III, Section 2, Clause 5
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States,— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This clause does not establish a further class of citizen. As for the first four instances mentioned in this clause, these by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is, those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized. As for the fifth instance, this refers to a citizens of a foreign State and therefore not relevant to this discussion.
This is important: Nothing in this clause references or establishes a third class of citizenship.
Instances 10 and 11: Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This clause, too, does not establish a further class of citizen, and the two instances mentioned in this clause, by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized.
Thus we have exhausted every mention of the word citizen and all its derivative forms, plural, etc. that are found in the Constitution of the United States.
It is demonstrated that there are only two classes of citizen established within the Articles, Sections and Clauses of the Constitution.
These classes are:
1. natural born
2. naturalized
All citizens must belong to one of these classes. If a citizen is not naturalized only one other possibility has been identified: natural born. All citizens are either naturalized or natural born; there is not other possibility.
Obviously, this analysis will categorize any citizen acquiring citizenship by birth as natural born. Some argue that only SOME citizens acquiring citizenship by birth are to be classed as natural born. They claim that other citizens acquiring citizenship by the circumstances of their birth are a subset of naturalized citizen.
But, all such arguments must be based on suppositions, presumptions and hypotheses that are extraneous to the Constitution itself, for as I have exhaustively shown, the Constitution itself creates no such category of citizen.
I also submit that unless the Constitution is inherently impossible of interpretation or understanding based on its own terms, such extraneous references must not be permitted, or may sometimes be permitted with little weight as set against the Constitution’s own clear provisions.
I submit that all the fevered and tortured bending and twisting, and all the references to this and that while perhaps entertaining are essentially nothing more than a diversion.
The Constitution itself is clear. It establishes two classes of citizen; those that have become citizens through the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens by birth, that is the natural born citizens.
There is no third class of citizen.
1) He asserts without citing any specific authority. He asserts and issues generalized rhetoric.
2) The campaign’s claim that Darragh was not in Canada long enough to become a Can. cit. is not entirely true. Why would they make such a claim? In any event it arouses suspicion. The father says he became a Can. cit. When? Also when & where did he marry Darragh? This is relevant because Darragh, as the wife of a Can. cit., could have become a Can. cit. if she had been present in Canada 12 of the 18 months prior to making application. I am not asserting that she did or did not become a Can. cit. I am saying that it is possible. We need the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If, allow me to emphasis if, she was a Can. cit. when Rafael was born then he’s probably not even a U.S. citizen. All of the foregoing aside and presuming that Darragh remained a U.S. citizen all that shows is that he was eligible for a Congressional grant of citizenship, the status conferred was “citizen”, and he is not eligible to be President. In my opinion it would behoove him to provide documentation to prove his U.S. citizenship.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Otherwise walk.
They sure can!
However, as far as citizenship laws go they can only pass naturalization laws, laws which govern foreigners/aliens, not US Citizens...right?
So a naturalization law governing a child born of US Citizens born abroad applies to the child, not the US Citizen parent/s of the child...right?
I’ve posted all of that countless times at FR, but you aren’t expected to know that. So carry on.
“And it was added very recently by the Obama people.”
The so-called anti-Birther people are saying that is all a conspiracy theory, which brings up an interesting story. Sometime not long after Senator Orrin Hatch introduced a bill for an Amendment to the Constitution which would eliminate the natural born citizen clause. The motivation was described as being for the purpose of making it possible for Arnold Schwarzneggar to become elected as the POTUS. I was researching the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM 7) and used quotations from it. Sometime after that someone challenged my quotes and said there was no such quotation in the FAM 7. Irritated, I went online again to get the same quotation. What I did not find was surprising. The quotation was gone, and some new stuff was there. Since then, I have been trying to find a source for the obsolete editions of the FAM, so I can present evidence of how it is being edited and changed. So, I know from personal experience the FAM 7 is being changed to alter the meaning of some phrases. I suspect but cannot presently supply evidence of such changes affecting this paragraph.
If anyone has access to the old manuals by LEXIS or other means and can supply the text, it would be much appreciated.
Note, the prior paragraph also states, “In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” This when taken in context with the prior sentences means even if a statute did confer natural born citizenship, a statute cannot be used to alter the Constitution and its usage of the terminology to determine who is a natural born citizen.
For "shall be considered as," the law pretends something is, that it is not. "For purposes of excise tax, an apple shall be considered as an orange."
For "shall not be considered", the pretends something is not what is actually is.
Both are legal fictions that can be useful for various reasons. I suspect the reason that language is in there, is to get around the result of the Bellei case for persons granted naturalized citizenship at birth. We will pretend they are not naturalized (or that they are naturalized in the US, even though they are naturalized wherever they were born), and thereby preclude stripping citizenship from them.
Yes, we have terrible court decisions in our beloved country. Part of the cause is that the law schools, especially since Oliver Wendell Holmes have been dominated by progressives.
But the Constitution was not written by progressives. It was written by people steeped in the Natural Law and the Common Law of England.
Those people realized the value of loyalty and of patriotism. They knew there would be people anxious to come in and take over the government they had fashioned on the shoulders of the Magna Carta and the Common and Natural law of the Greek, Roman Judeo/Christian West.
I think they knew that loyalty and patriotism would be better found in people so committed to that historical world view that the founding fathers wanted only and Natural born person, one born of two citizen parents on this soil. It is a third class of citizen that transcends your well written essay.
I do not think they would be surprised at Barack Obama’s destructive behaviors as POTUS and were attempting to keep the phone and the pen out of the hands of people like him.
I think, regardless of his ‘citizen mother” that they would have deplored and tried to stop a man whose father was an avowed socialist citizen of a foreign country.
I think an intensive search for the original meaning of the term natural born citizen in the history preceeding the Declaration and the Constitution might change a lot of people’s minds about qualifications for POTUS. I think there is a third category after “citizen” and “naturalzed citizen”, one of both parent’s blood and of the soil.
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/
FWIW, those manuals have no force of law. Plenty of manuals are mistaken. In fact, it’s not a bad assumption that any statement in a government manual is false, and seek statutory and case law. Definitely do that if the issue is important.
I posted the whole thing for context.
Yeah, irrefutable authority. SCOTUS refutes itself every day. This is a lawless nation, and that condition is intentional by those who operate its centers of authority.
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."In establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, Congress defines who requires naturalization and who does not because (s)he is already a citizen at birth.In doing so the Court said in Rogers v. Bellei:
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . ." (snip) And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.
And, surely, you believe that a country has an inherent right - as SCOTUS has said many times - to say who are its citizens?
I was thinking the same thing
Cruz was not naturalized correct?
If people don’t think he is a citizen because he was not naturalized and he was born in a foreign country then what do they think he is right now? How can he be a Senator if he not a citizen?
No doubt. Carry on. I gotcha.
The issue has not been adjudicated, there was a near on point citizenship not natural of a china man. The issue muddying the waters is the wording of the 14th forcing the south to recognize blacks as citizens. Interestingly enough if the democommies try to go after say Cruze and win then Obambi, is disqualified and anything he put his pen to is invalid. Take a new look at the birth cert the white house released. note the registrant.
I’m not a lawyer (thank god) and I don’t really know how it would come out when push comes to shove because there are clearly fuzzy areas on this. It needs to be resolved and quickly.
I’ve posted those before and after pics of the FAM changes here. I think you can find it by googling “BuckeyeTexan” FAM site:freerepublic.com.
And yes, this is the real sticking point, right here: The argument is a legal one over whether he is naturalized; essentially over the definition of the word "naturalized."
If indeed Ted Cruz is nothing more than a naturalized citizen, then he is not now and never can be eligible for the Presidency.
So, I ask, in the absence of the statue at issue, would Ted Cruz be a US Citizen by birth according to the operation of natural law?
According to Vattel, the answer must be yes, providing the citizenship was bequeathed to him by his father.
We need to consider that today, citizen mothers are equally entitled to bequeath their citizenship to their children as fathers.
And then, there is the question of whether the children born abroad out of wedlock would inherit citizenship naturally from the mother. I contend the child would do so.
I believe that the only argument is whether or not the Constitution requires that we slavishly hew to the 18th century insistence of patrilineage - even though it is not a part of the Constitution - or whether we can accept that mothers and fathers have the NATURAL and equal ability to bequeath their nationality to their offspring. And this is quite independent of any statute.
Here is Vattel on the subject:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
I must note that the construction of Vattel's second sentence does not require two citizen parents as is often asserted. The plural 'parents' follows the plural 'natives, or natural-born citizens' in the same manner as the sentence "All the children and their parents were present," does not require or imply that both parents of each child were present.
I must also object to any interpretation that forces us to deny the right of women to bequeath citizenship to their children on the same basis as men. This is not merely a present day social norm, it is required by the Constitution, and this has nothing whatever to do with original intent.
Put quotes around the FAM though.
“The Constitution gives control over immigration and naturalization to Congress.”
Which part of the Constitution gives Congress authority over immigration? I can’t seem to find it.
I mean that I do want to believe that our federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate immigration, but I simply cannot find any provision for this in it.
There’s no question that he’s naturalized. Without statute he would not be a citizen.
The foreign-born child of a U.S. citizen mother in 1874 was not a U.S. citizen.
The foreign-born child of a U.S. citizen mother in 1970 may become a U.S. citizen, provided conditions are met.
Exact same circumstances, completely different outcomes.
In 1970 there was a Congressional act which provided the foreign-born children of citizens may become citizens if the terms of the statute are complied with, in 1874 there was not.
To illustrate, a child born to a U.S. citizen mother in 1874 in Oxfordshire, England was not a U.S. citizen. That child is Winston Churchill, he was posthumously proclaimed Honorary Citizen of the United States April 9, 1963 (Pub. L. 88-6)
The exact same circumstances as Cruz, the foreign-born child of a U.S. citizen mother, yet Churchill was not a citizen. Why? Because there was no statute to make him one.
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.