THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “NATURAL” AND “NATIVE” AS APPLIED TO AN ARTICLE II “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ^ | January 10, 2008 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

[Puzo1]

Article II "natural born Citizen" means much more than "native" born U.S. citizen

[Puzo1]

Article II "natural born Citizen" is a word of art. In our quest to determine what it means when applied to a candidate’s eligibility to be President, we have to consider the particular context or knowledge environment out of which it originated. That means that we have to go back to the context and political and social environment in which the Founders and Framers found themselves. In this endeavor, we must first recognize that the term is found in our Constitution, a document that cannot be so simply changed because of the changing winds of political opinion. Next, we must look to the surrounding political and social circumstances with which the Framers were faced. In this context, "natural" means much more than "native," for natural also has a connection to the child's parents and not just to the soil on which the child was born. The connection to the parents is of utmost importance because a child to a great degree "inherits" his/her values, condition, and allegiance from his/her parents. Knowing who a child's parents are tells us a great deal (of course not all) about the child in this connection. Put all together, this vital information helps the people to know who their would-be leader is and place their trust and national security in his hands.

Finally, we must keep in mind that Article II only provides for threshold eligibility standards which are only the minimum requirements to be President. It does not make any further value judgments. Hence, once a would-be candidate satisfies the strict standard of what a "natural born Citizen" is, i.e., born on U.S. soil or its equivalent under military circumstances to two U.S. citizen parents who have acquired that status by birth or naturalization, it is still up to the people to vote for that individual based on their perception of what that candidate stands or does not stand for. In other words, there are no value judgments made by the people when it comes to a Presidential candidate's Constitutional eligibility requirements, for the Constitution has already given the people what those requirements are. Once that candidate shows the people through objective, credible, and sufficient evidence that he/she meets those minimum Constitutional eligibility requirements, the rest is in the hands of the people.

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq. January 10, 2009

[screaminsunshine]

Why waste time on hoping the Fedral GTovernment will pay any attention to the Constitution. They view it as a speed bump.

[reg45]

So, if someone can prove that Ms. Dunham had a caesarian .....

[Tennessee Nana]

Welcome n00b..

What are you doing about the anchor babies ????

[hoosiermama]

It was posted a couple of days ago that one federal agency recognized three types of citizenship...Naturalized, Born in the USA and Born out of the USA.....Social Security Administration.

[Puzo1]

I do not know if you are serious, but if you are, it would be where the caesarean section took place and Ms. Dunham’s citizenship at that time that would be of interest, not her C-section alone.

[ml/nj]

See: Natural-born and Native-born Definitions.

ML/NJ

[org.whodat]

to two U.S. citizen parents

That statement is an out right lie, it says to a male citizen, does not say "two" US Citizens. In today interterpaption it requires one parent to be a us citizen. All the rest of it is fantasy. however in Mccains case he was not born on United States soil. Making the whole argument moot!!

[Humal]

“Once that candidate shows the people through objective, credible, and sufficient evidence that he/she meets those minimum Constitutional eligibility requirements...”

This, I believe, is the crux of most/all arguments before all courts: Obama has not shown that he meets the minimum eligibility requirements. Now that we are on the down hill slide to the inauguration, what can be done to either prove he is eligible or not eligible? If not eligible, what can be done, besides the Congress impeaching and removing him from office - which they won't do.

[MHGinTN]

Though I agree 100% with your differentiation, it is lost to the SCOTUS eyes since they are following their orders to ignore this issue and allow the affirmative action poseur to ascend the throne. The Constitutional Republic is no more, so what the Constitution says and means is no longer relevent, only compliance with ‘authorities’ (those who rule your economic and physical life) is now at play.

[Puzo1]

Excellent post. I had not yet read these definitions. What I wrote is wholly consistent with these definitions. It is clear from these definitions that being born on U.S. soil alone is not sufficient to make one a “natural born Citizen” and that being born abroad does not automatically disqualify one from that same status (the foreign birth could be under military circumstances). Putting aside the jurisdictional requirement of the 14th Amendment which is what our Supreme Court has done, it is also clear that being born on U.S. soil alone is sufficient to make one a “native” born citizen. What is also clear from these definitions is that it is the condition of a child being born to “natural born Subjects” (in the plural) that gives that child allegiance to his/her country. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” is such because of being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. Both of these conditions are necessary to be a “natural born Citizen.”

[DrC]

“They view it as a speed bump.”

Actually, a lot of anchor babies and their supporters view the 14th Amendment as a high-speed entry ramp. It may never been intended that way by the Amendment’s framers, but those belonging to the Constitutional Interpretation for DUmmies school of thought never have let legislative intent get in the way of self-serving interpretations that just coincidently happen to benefit Democrats.

[screaminsunshine]

Well whatever it has destroyed the country. The noticable tilt came when I heard the first mention of political correctness. I thought it was a joke. Obviously I was wrong. It was the destruction of free speech.

[Puzo1]

Your comment on political correctness made me think of how it applies to the Obama eligibility issue. Political correctness does not mean that someone does not have the freedom to speak. Rather, it means that you will have to suffer dire consequences for speaking. The magnitude of those consequences have a direct relation to one’s dependency. Maybe that is why more individuals from the dependent “mainstream” have not spoken on and raised questions regarding Obama’s eligibility to be President. I am not in any way defending those individuals. Rather, I am only making an observation.

[screaminsunshine]

The truth hurts. But it is still true.

[Kevmo]

I see you’re starting to answer questions on your interesting threads. Are you a lawyer?

[PA-RIVER]

Yes, I agree 100 percent.

However, Hussein will be president because affirmative action requires it, and PC correct pols endorse it.

Just as Barry Bonds will forever have an asterisk next to his name, so too will Hussien have a similar stain.