You have your theory and I have mine. That’s still allowed in America?
My theory is based on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause not changing anything in Article II, Section 1 but rather further defining it. Since 1868 there are only two types of U.S. citizenship: born and naturalized. Born citizens can be president or vice president and naturalized citizens cannot. The modern day term for the 18th century term “natural born citizen” is “Citizen of the United States At Birth.”
This is consistent with the point of view of the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison who said in 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.”— House of Representatives, May 22,1789 which was just two months after the Constitution went into effect.
Unless and until someone proves otherwise to Congress or in a court of law, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because the state of Hawaii says so. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) gives states the right to determine their own records and have those records accepted in other jurisdictions.
U.S. law states that a person born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent qualifies as a Citizen of the United States At Birth as long as the citizen parent had lived in the U.S. for five years after the age of 14.
Since Ted Cruz’s mother, the former Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, was a U.S. citizen born in Wilmington, Delaware, who had lived for at least a decade in the United States, he qualified for U.S. citizenship at birth under this condition.
Original intent can be gleaned from the first Naturalization Act which was adopted in 1790 and which excepted children born overseas to citizens from needing naturalization.
Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because he was never naturalized and needed no naturalization.
And I have one, too. That’s also allowed, right?
My theory doesn't necessarily conflict with yours, if you accept mine along with yours.
My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. Using the common understanding of the terms at the time, and coupling this with the intent stated in the Preamble that the Constitution was established to secure liberty to the People and their Posterity, it makes sense that the Frames meant the Presidency only for the Posterity of We the People.
This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen.
That's my theory. Don't bother with the retort of getting a court to agree with me. No court post-Obama ever would. Who knows what a pre-Obama court might have done.
-PJ
You are entitled to believe anything you want, but this does not make you correct.
My theory is based on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause not changing anything in Article II, Section 1 but rather further defining it.
As that is changing it, and therefore I regard that as an invalid theory. Changes must be explicit, not accidental.
Since 1868 there are only two types of U.S. citizenship: born and naturalized. Born citizens can be president or vice president and naturalized citizens cannot. The modern day term for the 18th century term “natural born citizen” is “Citizen of the United States At Birth.”
"Born" is not "natural born." You can be a "born" citizen according to a statute, yet not be a "natural" citizen. All the Anchor babies are "born" citizens according to the modern courts.
This is consistent with the point of view of the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison who said in 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.”— House of Representatives, May 22,1789 which was just two months after the Constitution went into effect.
We've been through this. Madison also noted that the man's ancestors had been citizens of South Carolina for generations, William Smith cited Vattel himself in support of his claim.
Madison said what he needed to say to get support for his friend and political ally, but when he had a chance to actually *ACT* on this opinion, he did the exact opposite.
You are well familiar with the James McClure episode, but what you don't know is what Madison was doing as Secretary of State before he became President. He was demanding that everything possible be done to weed out the false claims of American Citizenship by British subjects. You should read some of his letters between him and Monroe. It was a major problem of that time. British agents were constantly showing up with Seaman Papers and claiming to be American, and the Napoleon government was getting pissed about it. They suspected the US was collaborating with the British to spy on them.
No, Madison subsequently took a very different approach to dealing with the issue. Mere birth on the soil wasn't good enough for President Madison or Secretary of State Madison.
Unless and until someone proves otherwise to Congress or in a court of law, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because the state of Hawaii says so.
They also say they will give birth certificates to people who aren't born there, and there is nothing to compel them to speak the truth in this regard. As a matter of fact, looking at the huge numbers of efforts they have made to avoid stating anything plainly, I believe it ought to convince any reasonable person that they are lying about this particular example.
Nobody uses so many conditional statements unless they are hiding something.
Original intent can be gleaned from the first Naturalization Act which was adopted in 1790 and which excepted children born overseas to citizens from needing naturalization.
And here you go with that upside down backwards double flip with a half twist logic.
This obviously doesn't sound ridiculous to you, but I think you would have a tough sell with that one even among the people who mostly agree with your position.
You are alleging that the target of a "Naturalization Act" are the people who do not need naturalization. Well who is getting naturalized then? Nobody? Why call it a "naturalization" act, if nobody is getting naturalized?
I just shake my head and bemoan the fact that your opinion carries as much weight as my own with the uninformed.