Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
“This is clearly incorrect. Read “Minor v. Happersett.” The Court specifically did NOT define “natural born citizen.” “
They most certainly did, but decided NOT to address the 14th Amendment issue because they had already ascertained the subject was a natural born citizen so the other issue became moot!
JC
The 14th Amendment talks of Naturalized and Natural Born citizens. Since being Naturalized means being given citizenship to those who were not born here and were raised in a foreign country, that leave the rest under the Natural Born. People who were born here by people who reside here. That is how I look at it.
Simplistic claptrap...
JC
As a matter of fact, there was. Arthur concealed and lied about the fact that his father was not a citizen when he was born, even going so far as to have all his personal documents destroyed. The issue of his ineligibility was contentious in politics and the newspapers throughout his time as VP, then as president, and after he left office.
Referring back to your R176 … The Framers always understood that the very concept of citizenship involves loyalty, fealty, allegiance to the nation to which one belongs. … I believe you have focused in on one of the major reasons for the incremental success of the progressive movement.
This insidious movement bases much of its success on the fact that its leaders are artfully adept at taking the underpinnings of this republic – everything from the Biblical foundations of American law all the way to the Constitution itself – and perverting them so as to sculpt the result to their advantage and render it entirely foreign to the original intent.
That is why case law has become so incredibly dangerous – because when such people succeed in achieving a court decision that flies in the face of both Constitutionally-based law and common sense, that court decision, and subsequent others that rely on it, eventually supersede the Constitution itself.
The focus on perverted minutia, to the eventual exclusion of original intent, is what has succeeded in rendering original intent subservient to glib, left-leaning corrupt interpreters, whose interpretations eventually become written in stone.
And as each succeeding generation of Americans becomes less and less knowledgeable about this republic’s foundations, the interpreters become ever more brazen in authoring ‘law’ and setting ‘policy’ based on no foundation other than the realization of their own power-hungry agenda.
Your assertion regarding the definition of citizenship is a stellar example of this kind of perversion. For the first probably 125 years of our republic’s existence I suspect that no one questioned the fact that an American citizen not only had to meet certain minimal black-and-white requirements but, even more importantly, he would naturally be expected to bear an unwavering allegiance to this republic.
Yet, since the turn of the twentieth century, that portion of the intrinsic definition of American citizenship has found itself overwhelmed to the point of immaterialism because premeditated squabbles over minutia have taken precedence.
Most of what we see passing as ‘law’ these days is itself illegal. And most of what poses as ‘public policy’ these days is nothing more than yet another step in the realization of an insidious left-leaning political agenda.
Thank you, betty, for bringing common sense back into the argument. The fact that that characteristic of political debate is fast approaching extinction is both a primary goal of the progressive movement and, not coincidentally, a powerful force foretelling the demise of our beloved republic.
~ joanie
Funny. Whenever you folks try to clear up my thinking on things, all I can find are blog posts of blog posts by the thousands, all less than 3 years old. Can you cite me an original source, Pre Obama, where the destruction of documents and lying are expanded upon. It would be appreciated. Best to my memory of Arther, the Rats tried to smear him, but on the issue he wasn’t born here.
That is why case law has become so incredibly dangerous – because when such people succeed in achieving a court decision that flies in the face of both Constitutionally-based law and common sense, that court decision, and subsequent others that rely on it, eventually supersede the Constitution itself.
The focus on perverted minutia, to the eventual exclusion of original intent, is what has succeeded in rendering original intent subservient to glib, left-leaning corrupt interpreters, whose interpretations eventually become written in stone.
And as each succeeding generation of Americans becomes less and less knowledgeable about this republic’s foundations, the interpreters become ever more brazen in authoring ‘law’ and setting ‘policy’ based on no foundation other than the realization of their own power-hungry agenda.
Excellent summary.
The picture emerges of the Republic, in a canoe, without a paddle, heading for the rapids, heading over the waterfall...
The Search for the Chester Alan Arthur Papers,
The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 1972, page 310
Arthur was smeared by his political opponents, the same as Jefferson.
Open one of Vattel’s numerous editions, read it your self. You will learn Vattel is the Constitution.
They will not feel the need to do so.
As I have already stated, Rubio’s case is different. It is the case that always tests every law. It is so close to the intent of the law that one is not wrong by going either direction.
For me, the bottom line is this. Not only was Rubio born a decade after his parents set foot on this land, his parents had already established themselves as residents of the land.
The 1790 law, the original covering citizenship, would also be CLOSEST to what the Founders intended. It required simple appearance before a magistrate ANYPLACE in the colonies or territories as acceptable for citizenship.
As I stated PRIOR to Rubio’s birth, both parents had done that. His mother had ALREADY achieved full citizenship by the law of the 1960’s. His father was already working on his, so had appeared.
If the Founder’s opinions on “natural born” should carry weight over the current law defining “native citizen” being equivalent to “natural born”, the the Founder’s first law on the process of citizenship should also be the guide rather than today’s law.
By the law of 1790, there would have been no question of Rubio’s natural born status, in my humble, non-lawyerly opinion.
And...AS STATED...the Rubio’s received asylum a decade prior to Marco Rubio’s birth. In short, he was either natural born here, or he was a child without a country at all.
Jr. High, 1960’s I had a teacher who was just being Naturalized, he was from Greece. He taught us, and I remember it well. Since he was studying the Constitution, I go with his word. In order to President, (not Congress or Senate, a person has to be born on American Soil of TWO citizen Parents. I have known that most of my life, I will never believe anything other then that.
Why would the Founders make such a point only relating to the President?
“He has a fortress of solitude unpenetrated by any point of fact.”
To the point of absurdity.
A teacher. From Greece. Who was studying the Constitution.
Was he studying legal analysis? There has never been a requirement that both parents must be citizens. Never. Vattel noted that where the parents were of dual citizenship, the Citizenship of the Father was controlling, so your Greek teacher-student was wrong on the original intent front and you are perpetuating his error. The 14th Amendment effectively defines natural born citizenship in a manner different from Vattel in that it defines as a citizen any child born on American soil as a citizen at birth provided that the child is a subject of the United States. IOW the parents have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States. Dicta from the Supreme Court indicates that an inention to establish permanent residency is sufficient.
Believe what you want, but it is clear that in the case of Marco Rubio he is a natural born citizen of the United States. He was not born with dual citizenship because his parents were not subjects of any country other than the United States. There is not a court in this country who would rule otherwise.
That is the crux of the issue. Had Rubio's parents established themselves as subject to the US with behavior indicating that was their intent? [Intent is also the best interpretation of the original 1790(92?) law on citizenship.]
The answer is yes.
1. His father fled Cuba in 1960 and accepted asylum in the US. That is, he made himself subject to the new land on which he landed after his flight from communism.
2. Both mother and father worked a variety of jobs in a few different states and subjected themselves to all the laws and requirements of those states.
3. His mother actually sought and received citizenship under the law in effect in the 60's, clearly indicating irrefutable citizenship.
4. His father had appeared before the authorities in pursuit of his own citizenship, thereby establishing being subject to the US. (This would have met the original law of the Founders, 1790(92), and must be acceptable to those who argue the intent of the Founders.)
5. Rubio was born AFTER all this was accomplished by his parents, a decade after their arrival in the US.
And, P-Marlowe's point about the 14th amendment CANNOT be ignored. The Original Constitution provided for making amendments. The Original Constitution said that those amendments would BE the Constitution as much as the original.
One cannot separate the 14th amendment from the original intent of the founders.
It says that for citizenship all that must be established is that the parents are not subject to a foreign country, and are subject to this country.
That applies to Marco Rubio. It does not apply to Jindal (whose parents were on student visas from India), and it does not apply to Obama (whose father remained a Kenyan til his death).
Thanks for the link Squeeky.
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
- - -
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Basically, what you're saying holds for the second paragraph I quoted, that the preamble of the Constitution, by saying "We the People" and "ourselves and our posterity" defined who the citizens were "before the adoption of the [14th] amendment." This means all persons born in the country of citizens and those who were naturalized by Congress, as well as their children who were then born in the country and those children who weren't ... up until the 14th amendment added those born in the country who were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which WKA defines as the children of those aliens who had permanent residence and domicil in the U.S. despite not being naturalized.
My take/reading of the 14th Amendment is that it is specific as to two kinds of persons being plain citizens of the USA, i.e. those persons born in the USA and/or those naturalized. There is nothing mentioned about conferring on either kind of person the distinctive characteristic of being a ‘natural born citizen’ and it does not deal with the possibility of such. For the one kind of the citizen, i.e. the naturalized, the gate to ‘natural born citizen’ is closed. For the other kind of citizen the gate for ‘natural born citizen’ can be opened depending on parentage. I see no conflict with my previous statement that ‘natural born citizen’ is distinctive and intended by the Founders to be such.
Thank you for this wonderful clarification of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language, P-Marlowe.
I run into a whole lot of people nowadays who argue that to be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" simply means that if one commits a crime in America, one is subject to our criminal laws. This, to me, is a horrifically reductionist view that flies in the face of common sense and experience.
What you make clear, however, is that to be "subject to the jurisdiction" essentially means that one desires to become a part of the American polity, to bear exclusive fealty and allegiance to the Constitution, forsaking once and for all all prior ties of loyalty to any other national jurisdiction.
On this basis, Marco Rubio, on his and his family's history, is a natural-born citizen of the United States, while Bobby Jindal is not.
Thank you ever so much for your outstanding explanation!
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.