Replies

editor-surveyor wrote:

This is nothing new. We’ve been discussing this case for two and a half years, and the honest among us have always agreed that MvH firmly established natural born citizenship as that of the child of two citizen parents.

Thing is, real legal scholars have been discussing it since before we were born. In the 1800's there were still doubts, but they were settled. As late as 1916 Breckinridge Long argued that Charles Evans Hughes was ineligible for the presidency, but Long's argumed that Hughes' citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing when Hughes was born, which was prior to the 14'th Amendment.

In our time, the remaining doubts were about jus sanguinis:

"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]

"It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

I'd say that John McCain's candidacy settled the remaining doubts. "Natural-born United States citizen" means a United States citizen who has become a United States citizen at the moment of his or her birth.

There is not a shred of foundation for any other position.

Pure fantasy.

Oh, please! Don't drag out that tired old Jill Pryor crap! Even she stated this...
The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty
This Note (that means "this paper is nothing more than my opinion") argues that the natural-born citizen clause can only be properly understood if we appreciate the interplay of that clause with the naturalization powers clause of article 1,¹⁰ as modified by section one of the Fourteenth Amendment.¹¹
So according to her there was no way to determine who was and wasn't a natural born citizen before the passage of the 14th Amendment?! That's just ludicrous on its face!
And for Gordon...
2000 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.J.Res. 88
JULY 24, 2000
Over 30 years ago a legal scholar, Charles Gordon, addressed the question of whether people born overseas to United States citizens could be called ''natural born'' citizens and hence be eligible to be President. After reviewing the legal history of the clause and subsequent legislation, Gordon answers this question in the affirmative. However, he also points out that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue and that ''that the picture is clouded by elements of doubt.'' This analysis leads him to the following conclusion:
It is unfortunate that doubts remain on an issue of such vital importance to many Americans. We live in a fluid and ever diminishing world. The interests of our nation and its people are constantly expanding and millions of Americans reside for short or long periods in foreign countries. They are there in pursuit of inspiration, enlightenment, profit, pleasure, repose or escape. All of these have a right to retain their status as American citizens while they live abroad. One can perceive no sound reason for shutting off aspiration to the Presidency for the children born to them while they are temporarily sojourning in foreign countries.

In the 1800's there were still doubts, but they were settled.
Oh? How were they settled?

First off, I would like to thank you for spurring me on to read Gordon. I've been truly negligent in not having read his opinion beforehand.
And so, having done so let's discuss your often used parenthetical...
"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents."
The first thing that strikes me is that you fail to use the whole paragraph. Perhaps that's because it doesn't help your argument since you have the tendency to present the concept of native-born to be the same as natural-born. So, for clarity...the whole paragraph instead of your snippet.
The approach of our 45th presidential election evokes once again the question of constitutional eligibility. Under the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, only "natural-born" citizens are qualified for this highest office. It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.' The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents. Can they [native-born citizens] be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?
Do you consider your actions ethical since the usage of your snippet limits the thoughts Gordon was trying to present?

To continue the natural/native born aspect...

A third puzzling element of the constitutional declaration is its specification that the presidential aspirant must have "been fourteen years a resident of the United States." If the Framers were speaking only of the native-born, this limitation would hardly have been necessary. It can doubtless be urged that this residence qualification was intended to relate only to the portion of the qualification clause dealing with citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. But while the language of the qualification clause obviously includes this group, it is not in context limited to them. Indeed, it seems consistent with a supposition that the "natural-born" qualification was intended to include those who had acquired United States citizenship at birth abroad.⁷
And one more...
Next, I turn to Chancellor Kent's famous Commentaries. At one point Kent seemed to equate natural-born with native-born and believed (like Story) ¹⁸³ that the purpose of the presidential qualification clause was to exclude "ambitious foreigners."¹⁸⁴
So here again we see that a distinction is being made though I will agree with footnote 138.
It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. ¹³⁸
138. All authorities agree that the terms "native" and "natural-born" both refer to citizenship acquired at the time of birth. Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 666, 667 (1927) ; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 665 (N.Y. 1844) ("both expressions assume that birth is a test of citizenship . . ."); Morse, Natural Born Citizen of the United States, 66 ALBANY L.J. 99, 100 (1904).
It appears, at least to me, that even Gordon makes the distinction that they were not synonymous in definition and referred to two different types of citizens.

So stop your petty games and stop trying to misconstrue the quote to suit your particular, obviously biased, view.
And now to the meat...
What say you? Answer his question.
Can the "native-born" be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?

And an interesting aside...
Don't you find that while using Minor v. Happersett as a source Gordon failed to recognize Vattel as a potential source for the term "natural born citizen" when he wrote this...

The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who "were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."¹⁴² While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it. ¹⁴³

Oh, my...it only "appears to equate" the two terms.