Posted on 06/23/2012 6:13:41 AM PDT by urtax$@work
Contemplating about the subjects of Citizen and natural born Citizen , if anything, has shown me that the few words in the Constitution have sooo... many aspects that have been discovered, realized, understood thru discussions here on FR since 2008.
The FReeper postings from individuals across the country with varied backgrounds and educations have shown me all those varied aspects of better understanding of a subject, specifically the qualification aspects to hold federal office in our country.
Sometimes understanding or epiphanies of the NBC issues have come to me when i was not expecting such. The latest instance was yesterday when i was digging thru my college boxes (to show our youngest college bounder) and ran across my US History Survey text and leafed thru it. Flipped back to the appendices to the US Constitution . I was rereading the requirements to hold office and thinking about how to explain to a noob about the issue. ( I would show bar graphs of the stiffer requirements from US Rep to US Sen to President.)
Then it came to me that sometimes its more than just the plain words themselves that describe our laws but it's how the words are ARRANGED. Reread the qualifications of Rep., Sen., and president. There is one thing missing from the presidential citizenship phrase that is in the other two office holders citizen phrases.....It's the NUMBER OF YEARS. There are prescribed years for Rep and Sen to be Citizens. There are NO PRESCRIBED YEARS FOR NBC- which (again) reinforces the idea that it is attained only at birth.
I know NBC has been well discussed here but i don’t recall specifically the lack of prescribed years wording in conjunction with NBC and what that implies. If i did miss this little point in any previous discussion sorry to have wasted your time.
Hannity, BTW, did his whole pre-taped one hour show on Rubio last night, almost as if to introduce Rubio to his audience as the VP candidate. And there was even mention of Rubio as President at some time in the future. Yes, Rubio has been a frequent guest of his, but it's outrageous that Rubio should get so much play on Hannity's show!
“But a number of Freepers have added that both parents have to be citizens at the time of that person’s birth. How does that fit in with your definition?”
It doesn’t, but there is no ‘two-parent’ requirement.
Prior to Independence, everyone born the in the colonies was a “natural born subject” of the King, including those born of alien parents. Between Independence and the adoption of the Constitution, state legislatures used two terms interchangeably: ‘natural born subject’ and ‘natural born citizen’. Although the Constitution used the phrase NBC, the legislatures sometimes used ‘natural born subject’ in their citizenship laws.
With time, only NBC was used, and by the mid 1800s, most people simply used ‘citizen’, since the only distinction in US law between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen is that the latter can run for President.
In 1898, the US Supreme Court discussed at length the meaning of both NBC & the 14th Amendment, and concluded they were interchangeable - that anyone who met the NBC clause met the 14th Amendment wording, and vice-versa.
Thus, since 1898, there has been no doubt in the law. A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen by birth, not needing naturalization. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your butt. You will notice that no birther arguing for a two citizen parent requirement has EVER won in court. You should also notice that 0 of 50 states agree with them.
...the kid was born in the US but because they were sojourners or other happenstance presence persons, the kid was subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of the place of the parents citizenship.
Isn't that the very case with Sr. who was only here on a student visa?
And since his father was an "alien" (the legal definition) doesn't the citizenship follow the father?
I don't even see a more Constitutionally committed Court kicking an
elected President or Vice President out over the birthplace of his parents...
Could you see a more, or even a less, Constitutionally committed Court kicking an
elected President or Vice President out over the citizenship of his parents?
Yet another point of the Natural Born Cit. Requirement
Absolutely correct, but won't stop you from being flamed. And any appeal to original intent is going to be as successful as appealing to original intent regarding the interstate commerce clause or the general welfare clause.
This is great that you found this, and yes, it can be overlooked. Being a natural-born citizen is a state of grace — it can never be attained, it is a GIFT bestowed by citizen parents and grandparents.
Added to my nightly prayers.
“If it’s for POTUS purposes, there’s no need for his mother’s naturalization as he’s already out of the race with his father”
Good point.
I haz an inquiring type mind. Anyone out there know when Mama Rubio became a citizen of the US?
Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?
That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question. The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious. That is what the Ad Law Judge thought of Orly.
Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II--the reference is technically "dicta"--loose language in the opinion from the court. The court called it a holding but it isn't--it has nothing to do with the issue.
Rubio’s parents were not naturalized until several years after his birth. Fortunately, the theory that a “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution means something different than the term “natural-born citizen” under federal law going back to 1791 has been disproven for well over a century (President Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject, as was the father of 1916 GOP presidential nominee Charles Evans Hughes). A natural-born citizen of the U.S. is a U.S. citizen at birth, plain and simple, and it is a misreading of the Minor Case to claim otherwise.
Romney should select a runningmate based on who can help him win and be ready to take over as president if need be, not based on a constitutional-law theory with almost no support among legal scholars and judges that apparently would only apply to Republicans (since every suit claiming that Obama is not an NBC due to his father’s citizenship has been laughed out of court). Personally, I think that Rob Portman would be a far better runningmate for Romney than would Marco Rubio, based on the merits, not on unilateral disarmament.
“What makes naturalization unnecessary?”
Ummm...naturalization is what makes a non-citizen a citizen. If they are born a citizen, then there is no need. And with a few rare exceptions, if you are born in the USA, or born to two US citizens while overseas, you are born a citizen of the USA - a ‘natural born citizen’, per the understanding of the folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question.
That is a straightforward question. There either is or there isn't a definition.
The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious.
If the answer is "so obvious" then why don't you answer it with a straightforward answer?
The answer to the question can't be "it's a technical question". That's a statement, not an answer.
Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II...
I know the case. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you...Does Minor v. Happersett have within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"
-PJ
Could you see a more, or even a less, Constitutionally committed Court kicking an elected President or Vice President out over the citizenship of his parents?
OK you have got me there--that is sloppy writing on my part.
I didn't mean birthplace where you have it underlined; I meant citizenship.
And the answer is still "no"--if the person elected was born in the United States. And of course "yes" if he was born outside the territory of the several states whatever the citizenship of his parents.
As to the guy in the White House, Barry, his issue is a place of birth problem only whoever his parents were. That is your opinion, correct?
Yes. But with a couple of narrow exceptions, you won't find knowledgeable opinion's to the contrary. The lawyers who have been involved on our side really aren't up to the level of sophistication required here.
The one exception to that is the last ten pages of the opinion for the Congressional Research Service.
He says the answer is the same even for a person born outside the US.
The Liberals would prefer that answer--they would like to strike the Natural Born clause from the Constitution. In my opinion, the Liberal bar and academics got so locked in on the disqualifying element of the place of birth issue with Romney Sr. and Goldwater that I think they would have trouble extricating themselves from that answer--if you get someone born outside the US, absent a strong Liberal reconstruction of the Court that can afford not to be concerned about the history of this language, my view is that the Court would come down on a person born outside the US as not eligible.
...the kid was born in the US but because they were sojourners or other happenstance presence persons, the kid was subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of the place of the parents citizenship.
Isn't that the very case with Sr. who was only here on a student visa?
Good argument but I think the Court would see even the student who was here only for one term as distinguishable. I think the no jurisdiction because of limited contact concept is like the airplane flying across the country that stops in Omaha for fuel where the kid is born. Doesn't take much in the way of contact to attach sovereignty.
Senior was here for at least five years. If his kid was in fact born here, he is natural born.
And since his father was an "alien" (the legal definition) doesn't the citizenship follow the father?
No. That is only the subject of citizenship law of the father's jurisdiction. He might be a citizen somewhere else also. That's how you get dual citizenship. But in the US, born here is a super citizenship right under the 14th Amendment.
You missed philman_36 on this, so I took the liberty:
In 1898, the US Supreme Court discussed at length the meaning of both NBC & the 14th Amendment, and concluded they were interchangeable - that anyone who met the NBC clause met the 14th Amendment wording, and vice-versa.
Thus, since 1898, there has been no doubt in the law. A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen by birth, not needing naturalization. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your butt. You will notice that no birther arguing for a two citizen parent requirement has EVER won in court. You should also notice that 0 of 50 states agree with them.
The fact that you refer to "knowledgeable opinion" to the contrary only reinforces that this is lost history. But lost or not, it is what the Framers intended if Paine is to be believed.
-PJ
“Well aren’t children born of aliens made, or declared, US citizens via naturalization legislation?”
No. Not when they are born in the USA.
The US Congress has the power of naturalization, and they can pass laws setting up the criteria for making someone a naturalized citizen. If they are born a citizen, then they do not need naturalization, since they are NBC/14th Amendment citizens.
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/case.html
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.