Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Be sure to stay home in the next election.
Wouldn’t want to contaminate your vote...
Very presumptuous, and wrong. This issue had no bearing on the election.
What cost us the election is the fact that every means of mass communication is in the hands of Liberal Democrats, and they CHEAT by covering up their side's dirty laundry, and then manufacturing dirty laundry for our side.
The Media people are nothing but propaganda agents for the Democrats, and THAT is why we lost the election.
1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.
2. Some say that both parent must be Americans at the time of the Child’s birth.
3. Some say that as long as you never had to be naturalized to become a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. I believe this is the case with Cruz.
If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.
Thanks for that moment of clarity.
We've had 5 years now. Not one such law has been passed.
It was stabbed in the back in Arizona. Such a law may very well have toppled Obama.
For whatever reason, he jealously guards his proof of birth documents. Presenting an original document might have been beyond his ability. Had he been unable to do so, it would have ignited a firestorm.
I was just summarizing what I heard/read. Some of those statements come from people claiming to be lawyers or researchers. Like I said, I don’t know and was throwing it out there for a response.
I know. I was serious. The lack of emotion was refreshing.
You might be overlooking the fact that large numbers of conservative voters stayed home. I guess they got what they wanted, eh ?
Given that he owes his claim of American Citizenship to an act passed by Congress in 1934, it is hard to argue that this sort of citizenship is what the founders had in mind in 1787.
Aldo Mario Bellei had the exact same sort of citizenship. One that was apparently not proof against challenge. He lost his citizenship because he failed to adhere to the requirements specified in the law which GRANTED him citizenship.
Hard to make an argument that this sort of citizenship is "natural" when it requires an act of congress to create it, AND you can lose it. Can't see an actual "natural" citizen losing his citizenship for failing to have done something.
“If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Defining the meaning of terms used in the Constitution is exactly the role envisioned by the Founders for the Supremes.
If they were to rule, it would at least settle the issue legally. Though doubtless not all would agree with the ruling.
The founding fathers wanted undivided loyalty hence the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement for the presidency - i.e. one born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents resulting in undivided loyalty to USA.
Even if one does not have to naturalize to be a US citizen, such as in Cruz’s case - he might have been a US citizen due to his mother’s US citizenship and he didn’t have to naturalize to be a US citizen, BUT he was born in foreign soil to a foreign father, so has dual citizenship/divided loyalty - he is a Canadian and a USA citizen!
If country of birth determines ‘nbc’ then Cruz is a nbc of Canada!
If the citizenship of 1 parent determines the child’s citizenship then Cruz is a Canadian due to his father, AND, a USA citizen due to his mother!
Can a person with dual citizenship and divided loyalty be the president of USA? Not according to The US Constitution !
He was naturalized in 1934 when Congress passed the law making the foreign born children of American Women into citizens where before they were not.
I will hereafter refrain from posting to you on any topic at FR. Don't post to me, don't ping me to your idiotic kneepad wearing servitude to the grand lie that is little barry bastard boy. Your little demigod racist, Barack Obama, is an obscenity to humankind in general and to America specifically. He is a liar, just like you.
You have no regard for the truth in your purposely convoluted posts, while at the same time declaring your opinions to be not only the only truth but the only allowable perspective on the facts.
You are a nuisance, a liar, and an ass. Bray in someone else's direction, I think you stink the place up. It is alinsky tactics like you use that give some threads on FR a bad taste. You do not deal in truth, you spew your specious opinion of what written words mean knowing full well that you are twisting the meaning sometimes 180 degrees to fit your deception in service to the lying freak now occupying the White House ... occasionally, when he and his brood get back from a vacation.
You have been refuted time and again and consistently refuse to recognize your deception has been exposed. And now you will, as in typical fashion of alinsky vermin, demand that a list of refutations be posted or else you will declare that the charge is false. Buzz off, you obamaroid freak, I have zero respect for anything you post in service to the Obama lies.
I think one of the reasons the distinction has been lost is because of the Grandfather clause. It was something like 40 years before we had a natural born citizen President, and so for forty years, the topic simply didn't get discussed.
By the time those forty years had passed, the English Common law argument had been heard so many times, people simply accepted it as the basis of our "natural citizen" requirement. (Not all. Pennsylvania specifically noted that we followed the Vattel definition, rather than English Common law. )
I will further point out that the Abolitionist movement gained a great deal of strength after the Revolution era. Their efforts to emancipate the slaves REQUIRED the usage of English common law, because the "Law of Nations" was very much against them.
I think they simply pushed for the acceptance of the English law definition, not because it was accurate, but because that was what they needed to obtain their goals.
Thanks for not paying me the common courtesy of even pinging me to the post in which you falsely accuse me of being a "troll."
The Constitutional sources and arguments I quote speak for themselves. If anyone wants a pretty thorough compilation of what "natural born citizen" meant to our Founders, our Framers and our early legal experts - including a brief explanation of why quoting people like David Ramsay and Samuel Roberts is simply nonsense - here it is:
The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America (Updated 5/18/13)
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is talking the allegiance and relationship to the country that makes a person a United States citizen. He mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
The First Congress (1790):
"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."
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," and many others who took part in the Constitutional Convention. These men were very well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause - they had written, discussed and approved it! And they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency.
It was obviously quite well known that being a "natural born citizen" made one eligible to be President, and that is the only place the phrase had been used in national law. So it's clear that the First Congress and President were saying that children who would be born overseas to US citizen parents were eligible to the Presidency.
This makes it absolutely clear: The idea that the Framers of the Constitution meant for Presidential eligibility to require BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE.
In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
And between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, 16 signers of the Constitution - a full 40% of those who signed the Constitution - were members of the group who approved this Act.
They included: James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, and Nicholas Gilman (US House of Representatives), William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris and Pierce Butler (US Senate), and President George Washington.
Some have objected that 5 years later, a later Congress changed the wording, dropping "natural born." Yes, they did; but that's irrelevant to the original intention of the Framers of the Constitution.
The birther claim is that the Founders and Framers required "only the highest, most pure form of citizenship possible for Presidential eligibility, with no possible relationship to any other country." By the actions of the Framers themselves, this claim is false. They purposefully specified that a person could be born to American parents in a foreign country, grow up and be educated in that foreign country all the way to adulthood, then come to the United States - a country that that person had not grown up in and had never even set foot in - enter politics, and become President.
In other words, jus sanguinis - the law of blood, or parentage - was enough for Presidential eligibility.
But remember the earlier words of James Madison: Parentage was the less certain criterion for allegiance, and in United States law, parentage, or the law of blood, took a BACK SEAT to place of birth.
If the Framers of the Constitution considered parentage alone, then, to be enough for Presidential eligibility, that clearly implies that they regarded the stronger criterion of place of birth to also be enough by itself.
Or, to put it another way:
Parentage gives a certain indication that a person has allegiance to the country.
Place of birth, according to the Father of the Constitution, gives a stronger indication of allegiance to the country.
Parentage and place of birth combined give an even stronger indication of allegiance to the country.
If the Founders and Framers regarded parentage alone as being enough for Presidential eligibility - and they very clearly did - then that inevitably suggests, quite strongly, that the stronger qualifications of place of birth alone and [birth and parentage together] were also sufficient.
James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834) - with approval from US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
This was in Bayard's section on Presidential eligibility.
John Marshall was Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court for 35 years, starting just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified. He remains the longest-serving Chief Justice in history.
Marshall was also an important Founder outside of the Court. Along with James Madison and Edmund Randolph, he led the fight in Viriginia to adopt the Constitution.
Because of Marshall's tremendous influence, he is known in history as "the Great Chief Justice."
Chief Justice Marshall read Bayard's exposition of the Constitution and sent him a letter correcting him that Congress probably didn't need to ask the States for permission to build post and military roads - they had already been authorized to make such improvements.
It was a fairly subtle error. Bayard had written "that the power of Congress extends to lay out military and post-roads, through the several States, 'with their assent.'"
Chief Justice Marshall then wrote:
"With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."
Now that's not 100%, but I think it's close. It's clear that Marshall read the book. And the tone of Marshall's note indicates that he read the entire book. If he had not, he could not have made such a blanket statement.
Presidential eligibility is a pretty important topic, and Marshall would not have missed any significant error in that section.
So we have pretty clear word from one of the best authorities in early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant: It means someone who is a citizen by birth. That includes those born citizens in the United States, and it includes those born US citizens because they were born to American parents abroad.
John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson (1785)
In a letter about a treaty with the English, two years before the writing of the Constitution, John Adams wrote:
"...I think about substituting the words 'natural born citizens of the United States,' and 'natural born subjects of Great Britain,' instead of 'the most favored nation.'"
Adams therefore used "natural born citizens of the United States" and "natural born subjects of Great Britain" together and as if the two terms were parallel terms, exactly the same except for the difference between "subject" and "citizen." And Thomas Jefferson was the other person in the dialogue.
"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).
This is important because it again shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances.
French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional").
One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Virginia citizenship law written by Thomas Jefferson (1779):
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth... shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed... "
Like so many other passages from history, birthers have tried to twist the wording and make this law say something other than it says. But the fact is, the citizenship law that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1779 for the Commonwealth of Virginia was straight "jus soli," or "law of the soil." It provided that every white person born in Virginia, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, was a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.
Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship.
James Monroe Administration (1812):
In 1811, a James McClure was arrested and held by the French, who were at war with England. He claimed American citizenship but was initially denied help from the United States. Birthers have claimed that a newspaper letter regarding the incident, from a writer using the pseudonym of "Publius," reflected the position of the James Monroe Administration. But once the matter began to be talked about publicly, the Monroe Administration came to McClure's aid. They sent a letter to the French:
"I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates... from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W. Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating 'that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.'"
So Supreme Court Justice Johnson and the Monroe Administration said that McClure was a US citizen solely on the basis of where he was born. No mention seems to have been made at all of his parentage.
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”
And once again for Massachusetts. In defining who an alien is, they also define citizenship, because everyone who isn't an alien is a citizen.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Like Chief Justice John Marshall, the State of Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837 (translated back):
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
Tennessee State Legislature, An Act to Regulate and Declare the Rights of Foreigners (1838)
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
Clearly defines what "natural born citizen" meant to the Tennessee State Legislature in 1838. Anyone born within the limits of the United States was a natural born citizen without any regard to parentage.
From Spanish-language books on the Constitution (translated):
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
Born a citizen.
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Native citizen.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
The only people from early America who seem to legitimately differ from this understanding by our Founding Fathers, Framers and early legal experts are:
1. David Ramsay, a historian (not a lawyer or legal expert) who was fighting a sore-loser campaign to have the opponent who beat him in the election for the first House of Representatives declared ineligible.
Ramsays' views on citizenship were voted down 36-to-1 by a group including James Madison and about half a dozen other signers of the Constitution. Given the way he was slapped down, it's obvious that Ramsay does NOT represent the views of our Founders and Framers.
2. Samuel Roberts, a Pennsylvania judge who expressed the opinion that children born in the US of non-citizen parents were not citizens.
Roberts was not close to any of the Founders. He was not an expert on national law, and in fact had no responsibilities in regard to United States national law at all. He was simply a Pennsylvania judge who presided over the PA courts in several COUNTIES, who decided to write a book.
Further Roberts gave no reason or authority for his opinion at all. And he was absolutely contradicted by those who possessed more knowledge and authority, such as William Rawle (see above).
3. "Publius," a letter-writer to a newspaper in 1811.
"Publius'" real identity is not known. He could've been literally anybody in the country. Some people have claimed that he was actually President James Madison, but there is no evidence to support this idea except that Madison, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, had ONCE quite famously used the pseudonym "Publius" decades before in writing The Federalist.
Given that the pseudonym was widely known, it's not likely Madison would've used it again. And again, literally anyone in the country might have used the name.
"Publius" expresses the opinion that one James McClure, captured in France by the French, is not a US citizen even though he was born in South Carolina. But even Publius isn't sure whether he's correct in his opinion:
“These ideas are suggested with a considerable diffidence - the case of James McClure is clearly a nice one - and even if I had not the best reasons to ascribe the purest motives to General Armstrong in this transaction, still there is that dubious complexion in the case which might lead me to think, that a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with me on the occasion.”
And the understanding of Jame Madison's administration was shortly made clear. They promptly sent a letter stating that yes, James McClure WAS a US citizen, and gave as their sole reason the fact that he was born in South Carolina (see above).
IN CONCLUSION: The Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, and our early legal experts were quite clear that one does NOT have to be BOTH born on US soil and born of citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. Either situation meets the Constitutional qualification. Voices to the contrary are very rare, and carry no real authority on those rare occasions in which they do occur.
I don’t think Canada has the same immigration laws as we do. For instance, someone born in Canada does not become automatically become Canadian. But, again, this would be better answered by a Canadian.
Anyhow, I more persuaded by the notion that both parents have to be American citizens at the time of birth and/or that the child was born in the USA or territories/area under its authority.
No amnesty for illegal foreign Presidents!
“It’s pretty clear you should engage, Ted. Because it’s abundantly clear you’re not American-born. I, for one, won’t vote for you”
Agree. As much as I like some of what Cruz says, facts are facts. He is not eligible for the presidency, regardless of how open the door is for more law-breaking on this after the current resident of our White House’s attempt to totally take it off its hinges.
Do no mistake the applause you hear for approval. We're just happy you've stopped.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion and your citations.
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.