The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood

Catholic University Law Review ^ | 2015 | Mary Brigid McManamon

[Yashcheritsiy]

The concluding statement in the article:

"The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a ‘natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United States?” The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion: aside from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the answer is “no.”"

[ConjunctionJunction]

"I don't know that the NBC effect can be granted ex post facto."

I never said it could. I was addressing your point where you wrote "his father resided in the US but I believe never became a US citizen".

[RIghtwardHo]

“Original intent” is one of the last things a Court considers. Have argued it a number of times and it is almost a judicial axiom to say that ... judges do NOT care.

[MrEdd]

If they are born on a base or in an embassy, then they are on American soil. If they are born out in town then they are sadly not on American soil.

The founders were pretty clear. It isn’t just the left that sometimes don’t like what the founders had to say.

[jospehm20]

Somebody posted a copy of the applicable law in Canada at that time on another thread, it said that Cruz was born NBC Canadian. NBC being defined by that state as anybody born in Canada. He kept his Canadian citizenship until he was 43 years old in 2014. Can one be NBC of more than one country at the same time? I would guess no.

[tumblindice]

The law passed five years later in 1795 begins by stating that it is “to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” and when you get to the same wording in the 1790 act:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as *natural born Citizens*: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States ...”

The 1795 Act omits the words “natural born”, to wit:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as *citizens* of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons ... “.

I’m going to conjecture that some sharp eyed clark in a tri-cornered hat said, “Hey, wait a second! ... we just expressly contradicted Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.”

Keep in mind that the US Constitution (clearing throat) trumps any subsequent federal or state law that clearly contradicts it, or any outrageous SCOTUS ruling.
Or any Obama executive order.

[Pollster1]

It’s a tricky question.

When my wife went into labor eight weeks early in Paris (both of us natural born US citizens, on our final vacation as just a couple), would that have prevented our oldest child from being a natural born citizen if a French doctor had not been able to stop her labor?

I suspect even 200 years ago, “natural born citizen” would have been like porn - you know it when you see it, but not everyone would have agreed. I suspect an “anchor baby” born here to someone illegally on our soil or even to a tourist or merchant who was not a legal permanent resident would not have been considered a natural born citizen back then.

I would like to see Congress or even a constitutional amendment define the term simply. Hard cases make bad law, and we want to at least outline who (other than those on the vague borderlines that crop up) clearly is or is not a natural born citizen.

[gunnyg]

Hey!

But I’m not the the GyG you are referring to! I am THE Original Gunny G!

I have always posted my own sites; maybe a bit here.n.there on FR since ‘97...and @ Sgt Grit’s b4 they went north.

I know the GyG you are referring to, though...we’ve exchanged emails way back.

I’ve also had reports of a GyG personalized plates crossing a bridge somewhere in the midwest!
;)
Dick.G: AMERICAN!
USMC: 1952-’72
aka: Gunny G
Semper FIDELIS
*****

Best!
Dick.G: AMERICAN

[Republican Wildcat]

Natural Born Citizen’s meaning at the time the Constitution was written under the common law was that a person born within the Realm and jurisdiction of the Sovereign was a Natural Born Citizen. It has also been adjudicated on more than one occasion that anyone born on U.S. Soil to parents legally within the U.S. is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

[faithhopecharity]

The error in the 1790 law was corrected in the 1795 law that replaced it. (Ps: A congressional enactment could not have changed the constitution anyway, but at any event Congress realized the mistake and fixed it.). Citing the 1790 language is of no avail.

[Pollster1]

The Constitution will shortly be amended, I predict.

True!!
Very True!!!
Cruz is a natural born citizen because he was a citizen at birth!!!!
Cruz is a natural born citizen because he lived here all his life!!!!!
Cruz is a natural born citizen because his mother was a citizen!!!!!
Cruz is a natural born citizen because he is my top choice!!!!!!!!

[GreyFriar]

You wrote: “If they are born on a base or in an embassy, then they are on American soil. If they are born out in town then they are sadly not on American soil.”

I will disagree with you here, based upon the parents being in a foreign country under orders from the US government, rather than their own decision to visit there. But also with the 1795 law explained in post #45 by tumblindice

[piytar]

Thank you for your service!

Your daughter is absolutely a natural born citizen!

These (hopefully) faux Trumpsters (actually Hillary supporters, knowingly or not) have presented arguments that say your daughter isn’t (as you noted), hence my characterizations of them above.

PS Sorry for all the parentheticals, but they let me bake in multiple points efficiently.

[exnavy]

So, just as many of us here have said, the question of Cruz’ eligibility is... settled. So all the nay sayers, stop your carping. Obama was not the first time the question was raised.

[exnavy]

You didn’t read, or you don’t care.

[tallyhoe]

This is all I’m going to say on the matter!!!

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

[entropy12]

So is Abdul a natural born citizen of USA, born in Saudi Arabia, to a Saudi father and an American mother!

[wny]

The intent of this clause was to prevent a situation where “...a foreign born prince...”, or an agent of a foreign government to come here and get elected. Similar, say, to Hillary getting elected to the senate from NY for instance - no residence or roots in ny, no interest in the concerns or well being whatsoever of ny or anyone in it. Purely to advance herself. That’s why the 10-year residency is included. Surely the founders did nor want a foreigner showing up and being elected. Nor did they want someone born here, to parents born here, that left the country as an infant, was born and raised abroad....say England at the time, or the Soviet Union say, or Indonesia for that matter, returning to be president. Can/will/does anyone born in the U.S., to two parents also born in the U.S., sensibly argue that if they were born abroad when their parents were on vacation and retuned to the U.S., only days old, were born and raised here for 40-plus years that you wouldn’t be a citizen eligible under this clause? That argument would be ridiculous. Likewise, yourself, your father, your grandfather, etc. in the U.S. Military marries a local girl in Germany, Italy or wherever, they have a child overseas and return as a family to the U.S. And the child is raised here for 40 -something years. Even if the mother never becomes a citizen, can/does/will anyone make the argument that child is not a citizen eligible under this clause? Also ridiculous.

[GBA]

Lol, nailed it.

[Johnny B.]

Nice quote.

Now, how about quoting that same passage as it is worded in the Naturalization Act of 1795?

If you're suggesting that Congress has the power to define, and redefine, who is or is not a NBC, then I agree with you.

If you're suggesting that the 1795 law is somehow more relevant than the 1790 law, then you're nuts.

Both the first such law (passed by the very first Congress, with the largest group of Framers to vote on an Immigration law), and the Immigration Law in effect when Cruz was born make it clear that Cruz IS a NBC.

[Uncle Sham]

I am simply asking you to quote the language of the 1795 Naturalization Act that applies to the line you quoted from the Act of 1790. Is this to big of a request?