Posted on 04/03/2024 6:50:18 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Apr. 2, 2024) — Introduction
In 2015, two former high officials in the Office of the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice – Messrs. Paul Clement, a Republican, and Neal Katyal, a Democrat – jointly authored an article on the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” term (hereafter, for brevity, “nbC”). Entitled “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen,’” the article appeared in the March 2015 edition of the Harvard Law Review Forum (128 Harv.L.Rev.F. 161), which describes itself as the “the online companion to the print journal (i.e., the Harvard Law Review) and where “[i]t hosts scholarly discussion of our print content and timely reactions to recent developments.” Even today, the article is still widely cited as an authoritative source on the nbC issue, thus now warranting a revisiting for a more detailed examination of its contents.
By way of background, Paul Clement was nominated in 2005 by President George W. Bush to be the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States. He served in that capacity – well and honorably – between 2005 and 2008. After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, he clerked (1993-1994) for Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in your humble servant’s view, one of the best Supreme Court Justices of the last century.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Funny, they mention Cruz. He originally said that he was not qualified, was not an NBC. Then, when he decided he wanted to run, he changed his mind. Well, he’s not.
zfg what these alleged ‘scholars’ declared to be the definition of NBC. Common sense tells us what the founders meant. And obama was not ever a NBC.
It’s pretty shameles and disturbing how they’re re-writing history. And all for the sake of protecting affirmative action obama.
more G W MORON hangers on foisting their neoCON BS on the public. We all know what natural born citizen means, yet they use mental gymnastics to tell us that it’s a meaningless term.
Citizen at birth does NOT = natural born citizen. Never has. But the constitution was “reinterpreted” for affirmative action globohomo obama because he’s part of their satanic one-world club.
imho there should be an amendment to the law to clarify the meaning of natural born citizen.
“there should be an amendment to the law to clarify the meaning of natural born citizen.”
This is the only way that it will ever be defined and not interpreted. The courts all of then including by lack of action the Supreme Court have left the current interpretation to be if you are born on American soil you are a natural born citizen. Argue till blue in the face won’t change the fact that right now for all legal standing this is what the courts plural have said is the law of the land. Don’t like , scream to the hills about doesn’t matter it is standing policy and will not change until either the Supreme Court over turns USA v Wong and a slew of other rulings or a amendment is passed over their heads. That’s just how it is. I look forward to the 400+ replies these threads always get with all the huff and puff and mental masturbation. Nothing will change until one of the above two things happens. The likely hood of the USSC ruling that the big I was retrospectively ineligible is like lottery odds as in virtually zero. So the amendment route is the only way and also not very likely since the blue states don’t want one citizen parent which would also stop their precious anchor babies in the same amendment one cannot be done without the other. So the blue states will never slammed out the 14th anchor baby clause.
Stupid phone auto spell.
The likelihood of the USSC ruling that the big O was retrospectively ineligible is like lottery odds as in virtually zero. So the amendment route is the only way...
Here’s where I hang my hat. Vattel and the letter between Jay and Washington concerned about a “foreigner” being commander in chief.
If you have a choice at birth let’s say like Obama who could be a Brit by virtue of his father’s citizenship or a US by virtue of his mother (assuming he was born in Hawaii), then you are not natural born to the US because you have a choice. It would seem that the founders coming off the revolution would not want the son or daughter of a British citizen to be president, even though they grandfathered themselves.
So the citizenship of the parents determines. Jindal, Obama, Haley, Harris, Vivek not eligible.
I do acknowledge we need congressional action or USSC decision to have any certainty. Of course the court rejected 6 cases on Obama’s qualifications.
If you need to go through the naturalization process in order to become a citizen, you are not “natural born.” Otherwise, you are. It really is that simple, regardless of how some want to make it complicated.
ditto
Don’t leave Cruz off that list.
To repeat once again - history and reality already dictate what it meant at the time it was written - and also what Courts have already ruled. Papers making arguments do not change reality:
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “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. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
I agree, if “Going through the naturalization process”...also includes birthright citizenship, as it should because this is also citizenship bestowed by state law, not as a consequence of natural law.
Concur..this is the correct definition
Here’s the problem with the conclusion of all these cases using 14A §1 birthright citizenship: They are all antithetical to the very point of requiring a citizen to be born of two citizen parents so as to ensure as much as possible the Commander in Chief’s sole loyalty is to the United States.
Chester Alan Arthur is generally believed to have been born in northern Vermont, but opponents at the time spread the rumor that he had actually been born in Canada.
NOT ELIGIBLE. Nimarata Randhawa (the fraud Nikki Haley’s maiden name) is NOT eligible to be president. She is an anchor baby born to non-citizens.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/no-constitution-does-not-allow-children-born-non/
Point of order. Wong Kim Ark was not declared by the court to be a "natural born citizen." They declared him to be a "citizen", by operation of the 14th amendment.
People keep claiming that Wong Kim Ark involves "natural born citizen", but the truth is that it did not decide that issue. People merely interpret it as though it had.
And yes, all the courts will parrot crap they have been told without bothering to do any thinking on their own.
Our court system is the dumbest bunch of bootlickers in America.
That's not accurate. Any person born to an American female on foreign soil is a "citizen" who did not have to go through the naturalization process because congress made their naturalization automatic. (Rogers vs Bellei comes to mind.)
The 14th amendment is exactly the same. It naturalizes large classes of people without resorting to any process beyond being born on US land.
But these sorts of automatic naturalizations are very different from "natural born citizens."
A "natural born citizen" does not require any sort of positive law to be a citizen. They are a citizen by the operation of natural law, i.e. "nature."
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.