Posted on 05/14/2015 8:44:18 AM PDT by Josh Painter
This should not even be an issue any longer, but there are still some out there who didn't get the legal memo.
First, some history:
The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787. At the time, as Justice Joseph Story later explained in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, many of the framers worried about “ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.” “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” Jay wrote.
Washington thanked Jay for his hints in a reply dated September 2, 1787. Shortly thereafter, the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.
To make a long story short, the question boils down to a matter of intent:
While it is possible to trace the origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause, it is harder to determine its intended scope—who did the framers mean to exclude from the presidency by this language? The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.
In conclusion:
What can we expect if Senator Cruz or another similarly situated candidate runs for president in 2016? Undoubtedly, the controversy will continue with passionate advocates on both sides of the issue. A scholarly consensus is emerging, however, that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II. This consensus rests on firm foundations. First, given Jay’s letter and the language of the 1790 naturalization act, it seems evident that the framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad. Second, the 14-year residency requirement Article II also imposes as a presidential prerequisite ensures that, regardless of their place of birth, would-be presidents must spend a significant time living in the United States before they can run for office.
Concurring:
Two former top Justice Department lawyers say there is “no question” Ted Cruz is eligible for the presidency, in a new Harvard Law Review article that seeks to put to rest any doubt about the Texas Republican. “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” write Neal Katyal and Paul Clement in an article published March 11. “There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.”
[...]
The Harvard Law Review article is notable because it is a bipartisan assessment that Cruz meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen.” Katyal was an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration from May 2010 to June 2011. Clement was solicitor general from 2004 to 2008 in the Bush administration and is, perhaps, best known nationally among conservatives for arguing the case against President Obama’s health care law before the Supreme Court in 2012.
Katyal and Clement review the intent and meaning behind “natural born citizen,” going back to the Founding Fathers. The question about citizenship and presidential eligibility has also affected Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain over the years — and all met the constitutional test.
Katyal and Clement conclude in their article:
As Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose. Finally, another bipartisan consensus:
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization — again, including Texas’s junior senator.
Case closed. Bye bye, birthers,
- JP
There is a question whether Obama gave up his American citizenship as he enrolled in a US college as a foreign student.
You are exactly right it matters not about him. Perhaps in future years we will find out who he really is.
But it is relevant because we haven't been presented with any actual proof that he was really born INSIDE the United States. As You will no deliberately fail to tell anyone, Hawaii gives birth certificates to the children of Hawaiian citizens regardless of where they are born.
It is an unusual law, and nobody expects such a thing when discussing birth certificates. Liberals have managed to keep the public from knowing about this, and have fooled most people into thinking that a birth certificate from Hawaii = birth in the country. No, it doesn't.
And of course you come along and do everything you can to promote confusion, and to further this false affirmation of citizenship for Obama.
OMG! It's a WORLD WIDE CONSPIRACY! Must be the Rothschilds behind it or something. :)
A reason that I see to keep talking about it is to prepare for the inevitable lawsuits that are to come. More than 200 lawsuits were filed challenging Obama’s eligibility. Preparations are already underway among the hardest of the hard core “birthers” to challenge Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio (and others like Rick Santorum’s Italian immigrant father and Rick’s dual Italian-U.S.citizenship at birth).
One of the early Obama eligibility challengers was Commander Charles Kirchner [USN Ret.]. Kirchner v Obama went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Kirchner is going after all candidates not born in the US to two born in the USA parents.
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/100-proof-rick-santorum-not-a-natural-born-citizen-father-naturalized-3-yrs-after-rick-was-born-foia-response-re-aldo-santorum/
However Kapi’olani Hospital is a place to be born that is within the state of Hawaii.
Anyone challenging Barack Obama’s birth there is going to have to prove a birth somewhere else. Over the last seven years, no one has been able to do that.
And as state officials have said, Hawaii will issue a birth certificate saying that a person was born in Kenya or Indonesia, it will not issue a birth certificate showing that a person born in Kenya or Indonesia was born in Hawaii.
And what sort of Person would have "never been RESIDENT"? A Foreigner, That's who.
The act was meant to interdict the Children of Citizens who had American citizenship but never lived in the country from passing on citizenship. As a matter of fact, I believe that is exactly what it says in the congressional record regarding that act.
If someone possessing American Citizenship, but who had never been RESIDENT could not pass on citizenship, by what argument could you claim that a foreign man could do so?
Bear in mind, that by English Common law, (your favorite legal authority when discussing this issue) *ONLY* the Fathers could pass on Citizenship if the child was born in a Foreign land.
Something tells me they will have more luck in the courts attacking Cruz than they did attacking Obama.
problem is... the left understands TCruz isn’t eligible and they’re hoping he gets the nomination. they will then contest his NBC status, pointing to not being born on the soil (thereby not addressing the 2 parent question... leaving 0bama untouched).
which will result in the right scrambling for a candidate going into the election. whoever is chosen, he won’t have the momentum and the base will be disillusioned. this will allow the dem candidate (which i believe will be EWarren) to win without much opposition.
if TCruz wants to run, he needs to address the issue early and get the SCOTUS to rule on the question before it’s too late
I read your link and am offering you the opportunity to amend your statement.
I see where he is questioning the timing of foreign-born parents acquiring their citizenship prior to birthing a presidential candidate, but I do not see where it is his mission that only USA-Born citizens can birth presidential candidates.
Can you point me to the source of your above claim, or be more precise in your claim?
-PJ
Well see here, this is where all the "brilliant legal minds" have it backwards. Constitutional law is supreme, and article II puts conditions on the Presidency, that if not met preclude someone from holding the office, and therefore ought to preclude them for entering the contest for it. These conditions trump state law.
The Constitution lays the groundwork such that the appellant need prove his legitimacy, not the other way around. But since our legal system and State governments are full of ignorant cowards, nobody would act upon the obvious requirements of the Constitution.
In fact, some state election officials tried and succeeded in arguing (I told you the courts are full of stupid people) that they cannot be compelled to enforce the law, but they also successfully asserted that they can enforce the law when they want to. (Roger Caballero.)
And as state officials have said, Hawaii will issue a birth certificate saying that a person was born in Kenya or Indonesia, it will not issue a birth certificate showing that a person born in Kenya or Indonesia was born in Hawaii. They can assert this claim, but we do not know if it is true. This doesn't even address the issue of what they put on the document when the Mother (or Grandmother) tells them something for which they have no actual proof.
Suppose someone is born in Canada, but the Mother (or Grandmother) tells Hawaiian officials that they were born "at home, in Hawaii".
What do Hawaiian officials put on the document? They will put down that the child was born in "Hawaii." Do not doubt it.
We have no proof that Hawaiian officials (or indeed the officials from any state) will tell the truth about a birth certificate, especially as regards an adopted child. As a matter of fact, we know they will absolutely not tell us the truth regarding an Adopted child.
Perhaps. Born in Canada is definitely different from born in Hawaii. Time will tell.
This is what I worry about too. It would be very bad for us if we nominate him, and they immediately start filing lawsuits.
Not only will this introduce doubt into the public mind, there is a possibility that he will in fact lose such cases. The Case of Rogers v Bellei argues the possibility of a serious threat.
Not everyone has such a warped understanding of cause and effect as does Nero Germanicus, and I wouldn't count his odds as good if he encounters any rational members of the Judiciary. Fortunately for him, there aren't that many, so maybe he has a chance.
I do not reject the possibility that he was actually born in Hawaii, I just reject the assertion that it has been proven to the necessary degree which should be required.
One does not play hanky panky games with something as mundane as a birth certificate unless someone has something to hide.
Unfortunately, we will never really say goodbye to birthers. They will not be satisfied by any argument however logical. In fact, they will twist any evidence you present to be proof that they are correct.
Um, no.
As it has been explained to me by a conservative history professor, while the initial intent may have been different, subsequent court decisions have defined “natural born citizen” as to mean an American citizen at the time of birth. In other words, not naturalized later.
How do you propose that it be proved to a greater degree?
Consider the possibility that “playing hanky-panky” was a political strategy designed to galvinize support from the liberal base and to demonize one’s opposition as racist without ever needing to use the term. Who are the other constituency groups that have their citizenship status questioned? Its Latinos and Asians. Obama got 73% of the Asian American vote and 71% of the Latino vote. Together that was 15% of the electorate and coupled with the black vote, 28% of the electorate.
“Take what your opposition considers to be your weakness and make it your strength.” — Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals
What part of KAPI’OLANI HOSPITAL with attending physician David A Sinclair signing for the hospital don’t you understand?
Yeah, I totally understand where you are coming from. Commander Kirchner says “two citizen parents” in all his writings yet he is challenging candidates whose parents are naturalized citizens, such as Ted Cruz’s father and Governors Jindal of Louisiana and Haley of South Carolina.
Barack Obama’s father was a resident on a student visa but still a foreigner.
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.