Commentary on the Commentary "[o]n the Meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen'"

“Do these people know that we plebes have a thing called ‘the internet’?”

(Footnotes in the original commentary are brought into text with numbers retained for reference)

We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. [This is an appeal to authority, not evidence—“trust us, we’re the experts.”] We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree [authors Neal Katyal, (Obama administration acting Solicitor General (May 2010-June 2011), Al Gore's co-counsel in Bush v. Gore of 2000, (Yale Law)), and Paul Clement (G. W. Bush administration Solicitor General (July 11, 2004 – June 19, 2008), (Harvard Law)) are suggesting that this article represents bipartisan consensus, since they are from “opposing” political parties, and therefore this article is above the fray of partisan advocacy—but both authors are members of the “establishment” or “government” party and therefore stand naturally in opposition to the unwashed masses, and in favor of a Harvard Law alum, and as easily seen by reading the primary sources, this article is not neutral or objective, but is essentially pure advocacy] on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates [the authors are framing their argument as a voter freedom or voter rights issue—but what about the rights of U.S. citizens to live in a constitutional republic?], free from spurious arguments [Legal Writing 101: do not use pejorative terms like “spurious”, because they only highlight the weakness of your position— if the opposing arguments are “spurious”, why do we need two former solicitors general (acting or actual) to unite across the nominal party divide to address them?] that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad. [Straw man / deflection—the real question is whether someone who is a U.S. citizen solely due to an act of Congress (at birth or at any other time) is eligible to serve as President. If the answer is yes, then among other consequences, Congress has the power to determine eligibility for the Executive under the “natural born citizen” requirement, effectively amending the Constitution by statute.]

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” (1) (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.) All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. [This is false—a mere conclusory assertion which is disproved by simply reading the primary sources cited in this article itself. For example, in 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63, cited below by the authors, Blackstone states: “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England . . . and aliens [are] such as are born out of it.”] And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution [false, the earliest evidence based on congress’ conduct is from 1790, three years after ratification] to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. parent citizen [false—the Naturalization Act of 1790 specifies children of “U.S. citizens” not of “a U.S. citizen”] generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States. (2) (See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.) [Irrelevant—the fact that someone may become a “citizen” as provided by act of Congress generally without regard to birthplace does not bear on whether one can become a “natural born” citizen without regard to birthplace. (See Blackstone, quoted above, on this point.) The enumerated powers clause of the Constitution grants Congress power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. Nowhere is Congress granted the power to define “natural born.” If Congress had this power, Congress could unilaterally amend the constitutional requirements for the chief executive, effectively completely eliminating the “natural born” requirement by redefinition, if desired. This is structurally untenable in the context of separation of powers. Based on the powers granted and not granted to Congress, U.S. citizens who are such by act of Congress are necessarily “naturalized” citizens only, unless they are also “natural born” on some other basis.]

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory [implying that this issue is easy, and that no one with any knowledge or intelligence would disagree (an implied ad-hominem)], here, the relevant materials clearly indicate [Legal Writing 101: the word “clearly” should be avoided because it is a red flag indicating that the opposite is true—if the point is so clear, the authors would just show it, not state it] that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. [False—the primary sources cited in this article show no such thing, and actually show that persons in Cruz’ position are not “natural born” citizens.] The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law (3) (See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888)) and enactments of the First Congress (4) (See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888)). [True—or at least the cases cited support the respective propositions asserted. But note that the British source is British common law (not British statutory law) and note that its use is in interpreting the Constitution, not as a direct source of U.S. law.] Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent. [False, as seen by simply reading the primary sources.]

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s [what happened to the discussion of British common law?—the authors are jumping straight to British statutory law, which is not one of the two “useful sources” listed above—why?—because British common law does not support their argument, so they ignore it] recognized [this term “recognized” is false in this context—British laws in force in the 1700s, naturalized, by act of Parliament, children born outside Britain and thus made them, by statute, subjects of the Crown—these British laws did not “recognize” them as such (as if this had been the pre-existing British common law)] that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. (5) (See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898).) [False in the phrase “used ‘natural born’ to encompass such children”—a weasel-lawyer phrase if ever there was one. The casual reader might be surprised to notice that the British laws at issue do not “use the term to encompass such children” in the expected sense of actually applying the term “natural born” to such children. These laws do not describe such children as “natural born,” or state that they were/are natural born independent of the effects of the respective Act itself (because they in fact were/are not). Instead, these laws provide that such children “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever” 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708) or “shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever” British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. (See https://archive.org/stream/statutesatlarge00britgoog#page/n506/mode/2up and http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1730.htm for online versions of the primary sources.] (The cited case itself does not support the conclusion for which it is cited, but appears to give a fair reading of the history and interpretation of the British laws.)] These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” (6) (7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.) [False in the use of the word “were”, as noted in the preceding comment.] The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. [True, but misleading in light of the foregoing parts of the article. The Framers would also have been familiar with the fact that under British common law natural born citizens (subjects) were those born within the territory of the King (unless they owed him no allegiance, as in the case of children of foreign ambassadors or of foreign invaders), and that Parliament had thus found it necessary or advisable in certain cases to create statutory law in order to provide the benefits of natural born status to foreign born children of British subjects.] They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries (7) (See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63), a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution. [True, but also misleading in light of the foregoing parts of the article. For example, the cited reference in Blackstone states (as quoted above) that “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England . . . and aliens [are] such as are born out of it. . . . [And further] “an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions . . . . The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. 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.”]

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition [what longstanding tradition??—two British acts of Parliament, separated by 22 years (in 1708 and 1730)??—is that the “longstanding tradition”??—where is expected the discussion of British common law??], just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established [false in the use of the term “established”—Congress did not “establish”, but rather “provided,” by law, under the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization] that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth [so what?], and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” [False in the statement that Congress “explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born Citizens’.” Congress rather, by statute, under the enumerated power to make a uniform rule of naturalization, provided by law that such children “shall be considered as natural born.” If these children were in fact “natural born” prior to the law being passed, the law would have been unnecessary. If the law was merely intended to restate the existing state of the law, the law would at least have said “are” natural born, or “are acknowledged as” rather than “shall be considered as.” In fact, Congress, by providing that such children “shall be considered as” natural born (in law), implicitly recognized that such children were not natural born (in fact), directly contrary to the authors’ claim of explicit recognition of “natural born” status.] The Naturalization Act of 1790 (8) (Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795)) provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” (9) (Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted)). The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. [True but misleading in light of the foregoing and the following.] That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents. (10) (See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).) [True, but totally beside the point and straw man / deflection: the statute does not define “natural born”, merely provides that certain children will be treated (in law) as natural born, though they are not (in fact). There is no definition in the statute to object to!!]

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly [another Legal Writing 101 no-no—“plainly” is a red flag for something that is not “plainly” so] includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings [false—as seen from the comments above, the 1790 act does not define “natural born”, further, “natural born” under common law traditions does not include someone who is a citizen from birth by descent—see, e.g., United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 671 (1898) ("‘The acquisition . . . of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.’" (citing Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741))], the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. [Again, having citizenship, from birth or later, as provided by statute, is not the issue and is beside the point—if these various and time-varying laws, passed under the naturalization power of Congress, change the meaning of “natural born”, then they effectively amend the Constitution, a result which makes no sense.] The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. (11) (See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.) The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth [the authors seem to imply that the 1790 Act was expanding on the British statute, but this is not the case as the British statute had no effect in the US, and was not being amended or replaced by the Act of 1790] to include children born abroad of citizen mothers [this is a stretched and unsupported interpretation not at all clear from the 1790 Act text—mothers are not mentioned in the text, and the text says the provision applies to “the children of citizens of the United States” (emphasis added) which may well require both parents to be citizens (at a time when legal citizenship of a woman generally followed that of her husband, so that blended citizenship marriages generally did not exist)—see http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html for an online copy of the text of the Acts of 1790 and 1795] as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. [True as far as it goes, but straw man / beside the point. Congress has naturalization power only, not “natural born” power.] Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth [irrelevant—so what?], and thus are “natural born Citizens [false].”

The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. [False, in the context of the original meaning asserted in this article.] The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether 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 [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. (12) (Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).)

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” (13) (3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).) The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. [Mindreading the Framers—where is the evidence?] Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility. (14) (See Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).) [(Is this the evidence?) Straw man / diversion and totally misleading in light of the primary sources—Jay’s proposal would not have had the effect of excluding his children, as Jay no doubt knew (and as the authors no doubt know). See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63 (“[T]he children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held [under common law] 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.”)]

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. (15) (See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.) Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth [apparently true] and is thus a “natural born Citizen” [false] within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” [false, as the 1790 Act did not (and could not) create any natural born citizens] even under the Naturalization Act of 1790 [and possibly doubly false, in that, as noted above, the 1790 act applied to “the children of citizens of the United States” (emphasis added), arguably not to children of a singular citizen (at a time when citizenship of a wife was often determined by that of her husband), so Cruz may not even have been a citizen under that Act, let alone “natural born”—again, see http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html for an online copy of the text of the Acts of 1790 and 1795]. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent. (16) (See Michael Dobbs, John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/factâ€‘checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].) [Straw man / diversion—(1) McCain was born to two U.S. citizen parents, unlike Cruz (2) the base and the Canal zone might arguably have been “dominions of the US” sufficient to confer “natural born status” (unlike Cruz’ Canada) and (3) service in the military of the father (or parent) might have been enough to confer “natural born” status, as in the case of an “embassador” under British common law (unlike Cruz’ father).] Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question [really?] that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth. (17) (See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).) Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. [OK then—bipartisanship!—that settles it!] The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’” (18) (S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).) [So now the Senate alone has power to amend/define the Constitutional requirements of the Executive? And why would the Senate ever (except perhaps to honor some abstract principle) exclude one of its own members from the power of the Presidential office?] And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater [different issue, as Arizona was at least a U.S. territory and thus he was born within the dominion of the US—Canada is not within the dominion of the US] and Governor George Romney [not natural born because born in Mexico, but at least both parents were citizens] were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. [Straw man/ diversion/ beside the point for the reasons noted.] [Just because “we the people” may have slept through elections before does not mean we should or will do so now.] Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964 (19) (See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL]), and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968 (20) (See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html).

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. [But Constitutional requirements for the office of President are not serious?] The less time spent dealing with specious [OK, the authors are really failing Legal Writing 101 now] objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear [still more Legal Writing 101 fail!] on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse [implying that the natural born requirement is bad, so we should not take it too seriously] , a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has ~~recognized~~ [provided, by law,] since [almost] the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parents [and, later, to a U.S. citizen parent (singular),] is generally a U.S. citizen from birth [and treated by law as if “natural born”] with no need for [any other form of] naturalization. [True, as fixed.] And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. [False.] 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. [Pants on fire much?— Farmer John]

Here's Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Like most immigrants, he does a job Americans won't: defending the Constitution.

Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

Ilya Shapiro

As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas - - love him or hate him - - continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret:Ted Cruz was born in Canada. (Full disclosure: I'm Canadian myself, with a green card. Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.) But does that mean that Cruz's presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards,having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate? No, actually, and it's not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States,the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency.(The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.) What's a "natural born citizen" ? The Constitution doesn't say, but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate thatthe phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - - in a manner regulated by federal law - - and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts. There's no ideological debate here:Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson - -who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases - - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility.Recall that McCain --lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists - - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - -as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later ("naturalizes" or who isn't a citizen at all - - can be president. So the one remaining question iswhether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth.That's an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - -or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - - citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here. That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - - Cruz was born in 1970 - -someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D. So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place inHawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else.(For those born since 1986, by the way,the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years,at least two of which must be after the age of 14.) In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn't be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain - -and could've said aboutObama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater - - Cruz "is certainly NOT the hypothetical 'foreigner'who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief."

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,

who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,

wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,

to support the Constitution of the United States,

beyond Sea, or out of the limits

as natural born Citizens:

shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in

except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

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.