A Critique of “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen'”

The likelihood of the USSC ruling that the big O was retrospectively ineligible is like lottery odds as in virtually zero.

There was absolutely no way any court was going to rule the first "black" presidential candidate was disqualified because he wasn't a "natural born citizen."

Wasn't going to happen and it didn't matter what the law said about it.

They weren't going to allow themselves to be castigated as the bad guys for just doing their job.

A repost, by me.

Let me educate you all.
There are only TWO (2) (Deux) types of U.S. citizenship.
1. Native citizenship
2. Naturalized citizenship.
THAT’S IT!
Then what is this “natural born” citizen I’ve heard so much about?
“Natural born citizen” is a constitutional requirement for President, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 AND Vice President, Twelfth Amendment, the last sentence, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
This “requirement” known by ALL framers and founders at the time to mean “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
(NOTICE: The word “parents” is plural. Meaning BOTH parents.)
This is where the term in the constitution comes from, The Law of Nations, by Emerich de Vattel, Book 1, page 212. Published 1758.
https://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel_01.htm
From an article about Tulsi’s eligibility at Heavy.com.
“A natural born citizen is typically described as someone who was a citizen from birth and never “had to go through the naturalization process,” Political Science Professor Colin Moore told BuzzFeed News shortly after Gabbard announced her intention to run for President. Moore said that most people born in American Samoa are disqualified from being President because they aren’t given birthright citizenship status by the U.S., but are considered non-citizen U.S. nationals.”
https://heavy.com/news/2019/07/tulsi-gabbard-ethnicity/
More from the article about Tulsi’s eligibility at Heavy.com.
The UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal concluded in 2012 that an American Samoan does have a standing for running, although it might be challenged. “An American Samoan candidate can rest assured that amidst current precedent, he has a legal and political leg to stand on if he decides to run.”
But Gabbard has another reason for qualifying. Tulsi Gabbard’s mother, Carol Gabbard, was born in Indiana. Her father, Mike Gabbard, was born in American Samoa and his father was a U.S. citizen. Tulsi is a U.S. citizen from birth based on her parents alone, BuzzFeed News concluded. U.S. law states that a person has citizenship at birth if “The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and the U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.””
https://heavy.com/news/2019/07/tulsi-gabbard-ethnicity/
This article (above) is so full of holes you could drive a convoy through it.
1. “A natural born citizen is typically described as someone who was a citizen from birth and never “had to go through the naturalization process,”
a. No, not exactly. Remember, ONLY 2 types of citizenship. A natural born citizen “IS” a “native born citizen”. A “citizen at/from birth”, BUT all native citizens are NOT, DO NOT MEET, the constitutional requirement for President/Vice President, of “natural born citizen” status at the time OF THEIR BIRTH.
2. most people born in American Samoa are disqualified from being President because they aren’t given birthright citizenship status by the U.S., but are considered non-citizen U.S. nationals.”
a. Yes, not exactly. “given birthright citizenship”. Nobody “GIVES YOU” “birthright citizenship”. You have it when you are born, or you don’t.
What he meant to say was that she is NOT a “native” citizen and therefore can NOT meet the “natural born citizen requirement for President OR Vice President. In THAT he is correct.
3. “The UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal”
a. You know the “Journal” that supersedes the U.S. Constitution. /S
4. “But Gabbard has another reason for qualifying. Tulsi Gabbard’s mother, Carol Gabbard, was born in Indiana. Her father, Mike Gabbard, was born in American Samoa and his father was a U.S. citizen.”
a. NO. Here they are making the argument that Tulsi is a “native” citizen. Apples and Pineapples. She MIGHT be, but THAT doesn’t make her eligible.
Where her paternal GRANDFATHER was born has ZERO bearing on eligibility.
5. “U.S. law states that a person has citizenship at birth if “The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and the U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.”
A. Correct, not exactly. This is again talking about “native” citizenship, NOT natural born citizen status. To be a “native citizen” only requires ONE parent to be a U.S. citizen WHEN the child was born.
I say not exactly because depending on the territory or possession you were born in various laws may govern whether you are born a U.S. citizen or not.
On one Island possession if you were born on one half of the Island you would be a U.S. citizen, if born on the other half, you would not.
Even Puerto Rico, it would depend on WHEN (what year) you were born. Born before that date and you would not be born a U.S. citizen.
That’s why I always say that to be POSITIVE that you meet the natural born citizen requirement, you had to have been born in one of the contiguous 48 states to TWO citizen parents.
Otherwise there MIGHT BE a problem. Alaska and Hawaii didn’t become states until 1959. Anyone born there before they became states (just territories) then different laws MIGHT apply.

77 posted on 3/2/2024, 3:41:29 PM by faucetman (Just the facts, ma’am, Just the facts )

Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens.

Incorrect. The English common law defines "Subjects" not "citizens." Citizen isn't even an English word that meant the same thing at the time. "Citizen" in 1760s English meant "City dweller." It did not mean "Member of a nation" back then. (Except in Switzerland, where it did since the 1300s.)

The deliberate choice of the word "Citizen" when "Subject" was the normal and more common term, meant they were rejecting English law on the matter, the same as they rejected it regarding the establishment of a state religion, Debtor's prison and "Corruption of blood."

All English laws that were anathema to the natural law foundation of American Independence were rejected, and the jus soli foundation of English subjectude was among them.

The English made everyone born on their soil owe allegiance to their King as a means of making them his soldiers to defend the crown. It was forcible patriation, and it did indeed force children born to foreign parents into the English army and navy.

Jus Soli common law is not for the benefit of the people, but instead was solely for the benefit of the crown.

Here is a critique of the practice from a Scottish Presbyterian minister in the early 1800s.

“the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. “

WRONG!

We just fought a revolution to NOT BE under “English common law”

Also the phrase they use is “naturally born citizens”.

The constitution says “NATURAL born citizen”. NOT the SAME!

When “commas” make a YUGE difference, I think a whole DIFFERENT word MIGHT make a difference, but hey it doesn’t really matter since it is from our former tyrant’s common law.

“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.’

I agree with most of what you said except the above.

Congress can NOT fix this. It HAS TO BE A constitutional amendment. PERIOD!!!!

SCOTUS CAN make a determination. “Interpret” the constitution is EXACTLY what they are there for.

In this highly politicized time/court, they don’t want to touch this with a ten foot pole.

I fear their decision would NOT be what I THINK the framers meant.

I think they would interpret it (MAKE NEW LAW), in a way that I would be sure that the framers would NOT agree with.

To make this “right”, they would be saying that Obama was illegitimate. Which he WAS, but they won’t say it/CAN’T say it.

A constitutional amendment is the ONLY way to fix this correctly.

It will NEVER happen.

Here is the link to Part 2 of constitutional scholar Joseph DeMaio's analysis of the logical fallacies and other writing trickery used in the 2015 paper by Paul Clement and Neal Katyal dissemble the true meaning of "natural born Citizen" (nbC). The C&K paper in 2015 was written by them at that time to help cover the position that Ted Cruz who was maneuvering for a run for President, that even though he was born in Canada to a Cuban national father, he was considered to a "natural born Citizen" of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/04/04/a-critique-of-on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen-2/

Obama was the first black Presidential candidate? Weren’t Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson black?

My grandfather was born a subject of Kaiser Franz Joseph. As a teenager he emigrated to a British colony and became a naturalized British subject, but when he went home to visit his father the Austrian authorities called him up for a draft physical—they did not recognize his change of citizenship. Fortunately they put him in a category to be drafted only in the case of war, and he had the good sense to move to the US before WWI broke out (I have his WWI US draft card). I don’t think the British authorities tried to track him down—they probably had no idea where he was.

congress can initiate the amendment for the states to vote on.

what is his deal? Born in Canada?

I never thought that anything about Obama qualified him for a gov’t. office, let alone president...but...somehow he got in there & accomplished just what I thought he would. He should have been ushered out at the point of a gun, but apparently nobody had the guts to try, so America paid a high price for that inaction.

One of his parents not a citizen, maybe. I don’t remember all the details.