Posted on 03/02/2010 11:43:58 AM PST by patlin
I was going to write an seperate article regarding this, but due to time constraints, I am just going to post this long hidden from public domain article regarding eligibilty requirements of those attaining to the office of POTUS. You can click the link at the end of the article to further read why a general definition of 'Native born' does not equate to 'Natural born' and how the DRONES try to obfuscate the debate in order to make them sound like they are equal on all levels. _________________________________________________
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905)
As a wide-spread interest attaches to the discussion of the meaning and scope of the constitutional provision in respect to eligibility for the office of president of the United States, I submit some views in this relation which may be opportune.
The question is often asked: Are children of citizens of the United States born at sea or in foreign territory, other than the offspring of American ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary, natural-born citizens of the United States, within the purview of the constitutional provision? After some consideration of the history of the times, of the relation of the provision to the subject-matter and of the acts of congress relating to citizenship, it seems clear to the undersigned that such persons are natural-born, that is, citizens by origin; and that, if otherwise qualified, they are eligible to the office of president. In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of ius sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli. If the provision was as sometimes inaccurately cited, namely, that the president must be “a native-born citizen,” there might be no question as to its meaning. But the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite. Its correspondent in English law, “natural-born subject,” appears in constitutional history and parliamentary enactments; and there it includes all children born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects; and the children of such children (i. e., children whose grandfathers by the father’s side were natural-born subjects), though their mothers were aliens, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes, unless their said ancestors were attainted or banished beyond sea for high treason, or were at the birth of such children in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “ native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
The earliest act of congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization (March 26, 1790) contained the following clause: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born at sea or out of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” The draft of this act has been credited to Mr. Jefferson, although his authorship has been questioned; and his reputed relationship to it may be ascribed to the fact that he was the author of the original naturalization acts in the Constitution of Virginia, and was an ardent supporter of a wise system of naturalization laws before and after he became President. But whoever drew the act followed closely the various parliamentary statutes of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared the opinion that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The act is declaratory; but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural—the result of parentage—and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. The second act of naturalization (January 29, 1795), which was reported and probably drawn by Mr. Madison, chairman of a select House committee, enacted “That the children of persons duly naturalized dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As carried forward in the Revised Statutes, the provision reads: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.” This provision, as its terms express, is declaratory; it is not the statute that constitutes children of American parentage citizens; it is the fact of American descent, the jus sanguinis, that makes them citizens at the moment of birth—a fact which, for sufficient and convenient reasons, the legislative power of the State recognizes and announces to the world.
If there was ambiguity, the rights and privileges of children of American parents dependent upon constitutional guarantee would demand recognition; and constitutional guaranties in favor of such persons might not be restricted or denied by congress.
To return to the constitutional requirement in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office, upon considerations which naturally had much weight at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. Where it was said in the old books that an alien is one born out of the king’s or State’s dominions or allegiance, this must be of the limits understood with some restrictions. A forced or restricted construction of the constitutional phrase under consideration would be out of harmony with ‘modern conceptions of political status, and might produce startling results. It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution. And it would be a strange conclusion, in another aspect, if the child of American parents, born in China, should be denied correspondent rights and privileges in the United States.
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.
WASHINGTON, D.C., March, 19o4
click on link above to go to the article defining the different definitions of 'Native born'.
What story??
Back up at 78.
parsy, the Wise Old Wolf
Hope this helps.
I haven’t really seen that many laws that talk about wives losing their U.S. Citizenship upon marriage to a foreign national. If so they would potentially become stateless, or maybe a U.S. national but not a U.S. citizen. I don’t believe all countries automatically naturalize the wife of on its foreign nationals living abroad.
Morality & the Family
Why would the founding fathers & newly freed subjects adopt a feudal law that basically puts their children immediately under the control of the US government from the moment of birth forever dividing the child's loyalties between parent & state? The answer is they wouldn't have & they didn't.
The original definition of natural born subject implemented upon the conquest and rise of the feudal government was very different from that of the ‘freeman’ Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons were comprised of 3 tribes, the Dunes, the English & the Saxons hence the term was adopted Anglo-Saxon and the new country was called England. Their laws were primitive, but they were based on natural law. The individual tribes(states/communities) councils consisted of the heads of each family and each household had 1 vote. There were kings elected from the councils, however not in the sense you immediately think of. The original kings held no power, they were merely the commanders of the armies. When they conquered what is now England and while they were still quite primitive, they resided along side and learned from the Christian monks who had remained. The monks introduced them to Christianity & thus it was until the Norman conquest). From Blackstone:
Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception..
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien...
Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully. As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire.
One can clearly see here that certain aspects of the ‘original common law’ of the anglo-saxons which was that of the laws of nature/laws of nations remained such as no dual allegiance but as you can also see, the English were finally forced to reinstate the part of natural law wherein the children follow the condition of the father regardless of place of birth, jus snaguinis. England's population was dwindling and so was the size of its armies & treasury. The crown was hungry for power to expand its territories and rule. It needed every body it could lay claim to.
Just this past decade, England stripped every speck of the feudal definition of ‘natural born subject’ from its laws. Current British law states that children born to aliens on British soil are themselves aliens. It is very specific and they are back to the citizenship laws of their ancient Anglo-Saxon founders. The same founders that Justice James Wilson speaks of in the very 1st Commentaries on US Law in 1791 Vol I & II:
Western Europe initially had 2 systems of law: Common Law of Rome and the Common Law of the Saxon, prior to the conquest. US law is the renewed form of Saxon law.
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.
The DRONES and their leaders don't want the general public knowing this history as it exposes their deceit. Now, who do you suppose the framers looked to to define ‘natural born citizen’? laws of nature as France their ally had adopted or did they want the new citizens to be perpetual subjects to the government?
You know the answer....
History of the title of King
In early Saxon England, the title of king held no monarchical power. The king was merely the general/commander of the army elected by the councils of the townships which included one member of each household, each having an equal vote.
The real kingdom of the English never existed before the days of Edward the Elder, and scarcely before the days of William the Norman and Henry the Angevin. As to the kingdom of England, that was a far later invention of the feudal lawyers
English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today.
Correction, the 3 tribes were the Jutes, the English(Angles) & the Saxons.
No, I'd say most countries naturally believe in single citizenship, which is why your renounce other citizenships when you take a naturalization oath. Also, it's hard to reconcile acceptance of dual citizenship when one believes natural born citizenship is a jus soli-only type of citizenship. IOW, if you think Obama is an NBC, then you have to deny he could ever been a dual citizen or ever possess citizenship in another country. Even he doesnt' go that far.
On 22 September 1922, Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. Now the citizenship status of a woman and a man were separate. This law gave each woman her own citizenship status. This act was partially drawn in response to issues regarding women’s citizenship that occurred after women were given the right to vote. From this date, no marriage to an alien has taken citizenship from any U.S.-born woman. Females who had lost their citizenship status via marriage to an alien could initiate their own naturalization proceedings.
1936
This act effected U.S. citizen women whose marriage to an alien between the acts of 1907 and 1922 had caused them to lose their citizenship status. These women, if the marriage to the alien had ended in death or divorce, could regain their citizenship by filing an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath of allegiance. Those women still married to their husband were not covered under the act and these individuals would have to go through the complete naturalization process.
1940
In 1940, Congress allowed all women who lost their citizenship status between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate by filling an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath. The complete naturalization process was no longer necessary for any woman whose marriage between 1907 and 1922 caused her to lose her citizenship status.
‘Natural born citizen’ has no special import other than as an eligibility requirement for serving as President of the Unitied States.
All types of citizenship have equal rights. Fact is, there is no “right” to be President.
We are in the midst of a real live ‘constitutional nightmare’.
I had read this in Shanks v. Dupont:
“Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect; because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not affect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.”
Not quite sure how that reconciles with your other postings on this subject.
“We are in the midst of a real live ‘constitutional nightmare’.”
Yes, without a doubt.
This is why the 'subject' clause is in the 14th amendment. Tha authors recognized that being subject to another nation would prevent the U.S. from being able to affirm sole citizenship via jus soli births.
Any country can grant its citizenship to anybody it chooses. The person doesn't even have to know about it.
It's pretty hard to prove any controlling legal authority when there's no paper trail connecting randoms coutries with random citizens.
If one is jus sanguinis how does that have any relevance whatsoever to another one that is jus soli natural born citizernship?
Because the concepts conflict when jus sanguinis is extranational. Jus soli can't be extranational, because you can't be born in two countries at the same time. Either one of the concepts is natural or the other is. They can't both be natural unless they are the same and reinforce each other. Otherwise, you're saying natural born is defined diffently in different countries.
Does this sound familiar with what is happening today with our indoctrinated youth? It should.
Sorry, but this doesn't address in any respect what I wrote. It really helps if you read all the words. I'll give you a second chance and see if you can figure out.
It's pretty hard to prove any controlling legal authority even when there is a paper trail.
No it's not. Try coming up with a rational argument instead of pointless contrariety.
The American definition is based exclusively on jus soli.
No, it's based on a combination of jus soli and and jus sanguinis. This is evidenced going back to the charters of the original colonies. It has never been defined simply by jus soli. What your thinking of is 14th amendment native born citizenship. And dual citizenship is mutually exclusive with natural born citizenship. It might work with native born citizenship, but not with natural born. There is no such thing as dual nature when it comes to citizenship and allegiance.
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.