Posted on 01/22/2015 2:41:41 PM PST by big bad easter bunny
The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.
Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.
bbeb seems to be adding a third - “naturally born”. Otherwise no descendant of a naturalized citizen could be a natural born citizen.
A lot of people add a third or even a fourth category of citizenship. But the Constitution does not identify any more than two types.
A lot of people add a third or even a fourth category of citizenship. But the Constitution does not identify any more than two types.
It’s straighten, not “straiten”. If you were a true American you’d know how to spell correctly. ( unless you went to a gov’t school in a blue state!)
” He is a lawyer...”
Yeah, I know. Some lawyers I have dealt with, can’t even tie their shoes.
Now that makes a lot of sense. After you fight a war with Britain and win then you sure as heck don’t want a British president. That would be like loosing the war after all.
Five years ago when there were dozens of threads each day on the "Natural Born Citizen" issue, some here argued, seemingly with a straight face, that an adopted child could never be president because we wouldn't know for certain if his biological parents were citizens or not.
It was always entertaining to watch birthers twist themselves into a pretzel trying to consistently support their logic. Needless to say, there were plenty of claims attesting that a child of unknown paternity was equally ineligible.
Citations from obscure 18th century books coming in 3,2,1..
BTW: I said the same thing, though not quite as succinctly as you over and over during the Obama birther debates.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution can interpret themselves, nor is the Declaration the ultimate standard for interpreting the Constitution. The laws of nature and of nature's God are the standard. The Declaration, however, clearly articulates principles of that law and the Constitution reflects the practical interweaving of those principles in it's provisions. Without the immutable laws of nature and of nature's God as an interpretive guide, however, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution lose their moral force.
It would be nice if there was a dictionary from 1787 that contained the phrase. Unfortunately there isn't. But we can look at how the term was applied in various laws.
Here are the Massachusetts Acts of naturalization (before the ratification of the Constitution individual states could naturalized individuals):
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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.”
In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “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 citizens."
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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.”
In May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” 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.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “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 February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman 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 June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner 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 March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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 March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS" in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
To answer your questions: my son’s cttizenship derives from conditionalities established by statute, just as naturalization is governed by statute. Both these are distinguished from natural born citizenship as that form of citizenship is seen as the natural and inalienable consequence of the circumstances of birth. It depends on no statute an in fact can be thought of a preceeding the establishment of any state or goverment.
But i think that he can not be cosidered naturalized as there was no different citizenship from which he was converted or naturalized a a citizen of the US. He has never been a citizen of any other State or Nation.
The pamphlet (which I very much wish I still had among my papers) did not say he was considered naturalized, only that he could not be considered natural born, and would not be considered eligible for the Presidency.
Thetime I spent out of the country was not relevant.
To answer your questions: my son’s cttizenship derives from conditionalities established by statute, just as naturalization is governed by statute. Both these are distinguished from natural born citizenship as that form of citizenship is seen as the natural and inalienable consequence of the circumstances of birth. It depends on no statute an in fact can be thought of a preceeding the establishment of any state or goverment.
But I think that he can not be cosidered naturalized as there was no different citizenship from which he was converted or naturalized a a citizen of the US. He has never been a citizen of any other State or Nation.
The pamphlet (which I very much wish I still had among my papers) did not say he was considered naturalized, only that he could not be considered natural born, and would not be considered eligible for the Presidency.
The time I spent out of the country was not relevant.
In short, yes.
 I'm as American as country music, you furry little dweeb. |
|
115½ posted on 01/23/2015 8:58:42 PM EST by Sen Ted Cruz (You know what the great thing is, success has a thousand fathers, failure is a bunny)
|
If you want off my ping list get over it!
From your reply:
“..... But I think that he can not be cosidered naturalized as there was no different citizenship from which he was converted or naturalized a a citizen of the US. He has never been a citizen of any other State or Nation.
The pamphlet (which I very much wish I still had among my papers) did not say he was considered naturalized,only that he could not be considered natural born,and would not be considered eligible for the Presidency. ...”
Many many thanks for the info!
It fits what I have been thinking all throughout this many-year discussion about “natural born citizen” ...
a “natural born citizen” doesn’t need to look up the ‘definition’ in a statute somewhere, and/or see if his or her circumstances of birth are addressed in said statute.
If what you posted were taken for all that it entails. Then where someone was born or to whom someone was born is no determination to being a natural born citizen. Those persons mentioned must of had to have met some unstated criteria. Otherwise Anyone could have been declared a natural born citizen. Who were those persons, and why were they declared citizens at all. We simply don’t know.
The point of looking at the acts was to show how the Massachusetts legislature used the two terms natural born citizen and natural born subject interchangeable.
I didn’t include the entire act but only the parts relevant for that purpose. Reading a complete act sometimes shows the place where the people were from, for example for the November, 1788 act:
Elisha Bourn, Sandwich, late subject of Great Britain
Seth Perry
Edward Bourn
Richard Devereux, Parsonfield, late of Ireland
William Jolly, Portland, late of St. Pierre, Martinico
Jeremiah Joakim Khaler, Boston, late subject of Denmark
Phillip Theobald, Pownalborough, from Hesse Hannau, Germany
John de Polerisky, late of Molsheim, in Alsatia, France
These were immigrants who had taken the oath of allegiance required by Massachusetts.
“Otherwise Anyone could have been declared a natural born citizen.”
They were not being declared natural born only that they had the same rights as natural born citizens. Just as naturalized US citizens today have the same rights as natural born US citizen except the ability to be President or Vice President.
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.