Posted on 01/16/2016 12:34:18 AM PST by RC one
The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens†was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,†as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.
As Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declared: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ….†(Italics added) A loophole for themselves, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote 46 years later, was created “out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Two distinct classes of citizens are described here and one is granted a privilege denied to the other. (as previously noted, the 14th amendment reinforces this distinction in its first 5 words).
A natural born citizen, according to the founder's understanding, is someone born on US soil as evidenced by the fact that they described themselves(or at least some of themselves) as citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution because they had not been born here but, rather at the time of the signing of the declaration of independence, they became naturalized citizens owing full allegiance to the newly formed country.
The authors of the constitution made the distinction, established the eligibility criteria, and incorporated their intent into the supreme law.
The constitution is supreme. Congress is not authorized to broadly redefine elements of the constitution that would fundamentally alter the meanings and applications of the supreme law. That would not be consistent with the constitutional Republican form of government they had formed. Congress is fully bound by the constitution just like the rest of us.
So, Ted Cruz can cite title 8 all he likes. title 8 never once strings the words natural born citizen together which, any reasonable person would agree, it must do if it intends to act upon article II, section I, clause 5.
We have already determined that the authors of the constitution recognized Natural Born Citizenship as distinct from Citizenship by incorporating the language into the constitution. So, citizen at birth means just that-citizen at birth, not Natural Born Citizen at birth.
“What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?”
Obama.
exactly. never again. Not without a fight.
Natural born was intended to keep foreign nobility from gaining control of the executive branch.
If you still owe allegiance to a foreign country by naturalization or birth, you aren’t a natural born citizen.
The Framers of the Constitution believed that a child born in the U.S. by two citizen parents was considered a natural born citizen. I believe this to be a fact given the history of that time. This term was specifically used to prevent a child growing up with two national allegiances either, by where they were born or, of parents with conflicting national allegiances. With the situation with the British at that time, you can understand their fear of the British undermining their great new nation through an allegiance situation in the highest office in the land. For example, let’s say JFK had a Cuban father and a American mother. What would have happened with the Cuban missile crisis if JFK thought it was OK for Cuba to have Soviet missiles? If he had a Cuban father, he might have had a sentiment for his Cuban father and let Cuba have their Soviet missiles.
Folks, this is not rocket science.
That was my exact thought, too, when I read the header. :-)
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.â€
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.â€
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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))
Ted Cruz's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. Ted Cruz was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Mark my word : it’s all kabuki
There will be a decision made this spring. And O will be involved
Trump and Cruz are both patriots and love the constitution
Trumps sister was a colleague with almost identical records of Sam Alito. She spoke for him at his confirmation hearing. His legal advice is no further away than a guest at holiday dinner. Daughter is headed to law school and great admirer of her aunt. Very Close family
That’s assuming any schmuck off the street can become president. The reality is most presidents can be traced back to the British crown, e.g. William the Conqueror or King Edward.
You gotta be royal blood to be top dog. Funny how this all works.
Do you think there is any less risk today of foreign agents infiltrating our executive branch and undermining our sovereignty and our constitution than there was in 1787?
The Cruz definition is no different from that of the children of Queen Noor of Jordan or those of Grace Kelly. It's paving the way for a situation where a person could be ruler of the US and another nation.
It's not a good precedent. We should be fighting to maintain our sovereignty, not creating situations that could work against it.
If Cruz is royal bloodline, which I’m sure he is on his mother’s side, the only test for allegiance is whether Cuba can lay claim to the “throne”.
We peons at the bottom of the schmuck pool really don’t know how this all works.
They were afraid of a Canadian invasion, eh?
So no need to worry, eh?
They were more concerned with royalty like Cruz, who may have a connection to Castro on his Dad’s side.
Interesting how we “little people” miss this and focus on the place moreso than the bloodlines.
that is where all the Tories went buddy.
Exactly, a Muslim from Kenya.
This is just brilliant on the parts of Cruz and Trump. No better way to clean the historical slate of the past seven years of usurpation, than to have the liberals lay out the case, and demand it be enforced.
Obama got a pass from Republicans. He should not have. That doesn't justify letting that precedent not only stand, but be expanded.
More like a mixed royal bloodline. Obama Sr. was probably a descendent of the royal family of Kenya.
Doesn’t help he’s a Marxist pinko Muslim. But you can clearly see who ole Barry gives allegiance to...his African buddies.
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.