Question -- constitutional meaning of "natural born."

Vanity | 4/9/11 | Publius

[nvl]

There is no amendment to the constitution or SCOTUS ruling that says both parents (or any parents) are required to be citizens to confer citizenship upon birth to a child born in the US

[Sherman Logan]

Presidents can’t veto amendments.

You are quite correct. The President has no role at all in the amendment process, somewhat oddly.

The Pilot was probably thinking of several Civil Rights bills that preceded the passage of the 14th. They were passed over Johnson's veto.

[Sherman Logan]

I happen to agree with you, but many disagree.

While I happen to believe jus solis applies, with a few minor exceptions, the Supremes have never definitively ruled on the definition of NBC, leaving it open to question, as the earlier Court said.

When they do rule, I believe they will say parentage is irrelevant.

[bushpilot1]

It is an offense to the Law of Nations

[Munz]

sorry, they were defined in the first continental congress, second session.
It is there in the law books

[joedel]

“Registering for Selective Service is in no way an eligibility requirement for the office of President.”

Where did you get that information? It is totally wrong. Failure to register with the SSS means you are ineligible for ANY Federal job and many State jobs.

[Sherman Logan]

Failure to register with the SSS means you are ineligible for ANY Federal job and many State jobs.

For this to apply to election to president, it would mean Congress can add additional requirements to those in the Constitution. I doubt this would be Constitutional.

In fact, I doubt it applies to election to any federal office. Such are not "employees" in the strict sense of the term.

[joedel]

“There is no amendment to the constitution or SCOTUS ruling that says both parents (or any parents) are required to be citizens to confer citizenship upon birth to a child born in the US

Not exactly within an Amendment, but the major writer of the 14th had a lot to say about the issue.

To quote Leo Donofrio from http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ :

“My article concerning Rep. Bingham (aka father of the 14th Amendment) highlighted three statements made on the floor of the House which were not challenged by other Representatives. One of the Bingham quotes from 1862 was this:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) “
......

“Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) “

If that definition was good enough for the writer of the 14th Amendment and Congress, it’s good enough for me.

[joedel]

http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm

FEDERAL JOBS
A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.

[Sherman Logan]

I am aware of the law. I just doubt it applies to elected office, which isn’t a “job” in the full sense of the term.

Do you seriously think it’s a good idea to give Congress the power to add more qualifications to those in the Constitution? Perhaps they could pass a law saying only men are eligible, or only women. Or only people under 5’ tall.

Why not? If they can require SS registration to be president, they can require anything else not specifically prohibited by law, such as a religious test or racial discrimination.

[joedel]

Whether a good idea or not, the site lists very few exceptions and “elected official” is not one of them.

Penalties for not registering can be up to $250K and 5 years in jail.

[Beckwith]

Things that are “natural” — “being in accordance with or determined by nature” — require no definition.

They just are.

If a person’s citizenship status has to be defined by an amendment, a law, or a statute, they are not “natural” born. They are “statutory” citizens — for example, Obama:

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/FourCases.htm#Obama

Persons, eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS), NEVER have first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.

ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with natural born citizens who have only American ties.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Cheers . . .

[nvl]

Citation please, on what was defended in the continental congress. I have cited surpreme court cases and amendments to the constitution that fully support what I have said. Please cite your source.

[nvl]

You said “Things that are “natural” — “being in accordance with or determined by nature” — require no definition.

They just are.

If a person’s citizenship status has to be defined by an amendment, a law, or a statute, they are not “natural” born. They are “statutory” citizens — for example”

Would you say that freedom of speech, religion or the right to bear arms are natural? If so, why are they codified in amendment? Your argument does not up if applied to the Bill of Rights. If those rights are natural, they just are and never needed to be spelled out, yet the founding fathers felt that they were important enough to explicitly specify.

ALL of our citizenships, even the founding fathers citizenships, were codified into law of some sort. Your argument makes no sense.

[ishmac]

Ping

[Munz]

>Citation please, on what was defended in the continental congress. I have cited surpreme court cases and amendments to the constitution that fully support what I have said. Please cite your source.<

everything is here and verifiable. It is the easiest way to get it all to you.

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

[Munz]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GXS5dktpxoY/SiwJYJO2PzI/AAAAAAAAAXM/ICnlYRz3ODQ/s1600/1stCongressNatBornCitiz.bmp

I think this pretty well supports what I am saying ..

[rxsid]

"Native" and "Natural" were synonymous in the 1700's, as was "Indigenous".

A few examples:

The new spelling dictionary
Author: John Entick
Published: 1780
Original from: University of Lausanne [Printed in London]
Digitized: Feb 27, 2008

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=xZUPAAAAQAAJ

 

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Edition: 3
Published: 1768
Original from: Oxford University [Printed in Dublin]
Digitized: Aug 10, 2006

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ

 

Knowing that "native" and "indigenous" and "natural" are synonymous in the times preceding the Constitutional Convention...have another look a Vattel's "Law of Nations":

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 197 of 592) [Note: A ~22 MB PDF]: Section title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels" To English: "Citizens and natural" Clearly there is a differentiation made between "Citizens" and "Natural" (born citizens). See below. French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages." ------------------- To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens" ------------------- To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

The first English translations of Vattel's work translated "naturels" to native. As we can see by the dictionaries of the time, "native" is synonymous with "natural." Later English editions of Vattel's work translated "naturels" to "natural." The point being, the words were interchangeable in this context, during and around 1787 when the Constitution was penned.

[rxsid]

b.t.w. This is precisely why we see this language in Minor v. Happersett:

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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

During the time of the framers, "native" and "natural" (& "indigenous") meant the same thing.