Replies

An excellent and scholarly article by the constitutional scholar Joe DeMaio analyzing the 2015 paper written by Paul Clement and Neal Katyal about the constitutional term "natural born Citizen".

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.

imho there should be an amendment to the law to clarify the meaning of natural born citizen.

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.

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:

If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. 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. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, (or Kamala Harris). The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.

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

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/

I think the article linked in this post tells us why all of this is wishful thinking.

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 )