Posted on 01/09/2016 7:58:16 PM PST by Joachim
Commentary on the Commentary
[o]n the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
or
“Do these people know that we plebes have a thing called ‘the internet’?”
Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement (text in black)
(Web link: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/)
Commentary on the Commentary by Farmer John (interspersed text in red)
(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/fact‑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]
| The True Law of Free Monarchies: Or The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subjects By King James I of England - 1598 As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their alleageance, according to the form of government established among them, especially in a Monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the Divinitie, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon; Unity being the perfection of all things,)… First then, I will set down the true grounds, whereupon I am to build, out of the Scriptures, since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinity, as I have already said: next, from the fundamental Laws of our own Kingdom, which nearest must concern us: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by divers similitudes drawn out of the same: and will conclude syne by answering the most waighty and appearing incommodities that can be objected. By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation... As to the other branch of this mutual and reciprocal band, is the duty and alleageance that the Lieges owe to their King: the ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited by Gods Spirit, when God had given him commandement to heare the peoples voice in choosing and annointing them a King. And because that place of Scripture being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I have insert herein the very words of the Text... ...it is plain, and evident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to give unto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intollerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would have said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as yee have else committed an error in shaking off Gods yoke, and over-hastie seeking of a King; so beware yee fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laid upon you, how hard that ever it seem to be: For as ye could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may ye no more, for he be once set over you, shake him off without the same warrant. And therefore in time arm your selves with patience and humility, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the only power to unmake him; and ye only to obey, bearing with these straits that I now foreshew you, as with the finger of God, which lieth not in you to take off.
Speech of James I before Parliament, March 21, 1610 The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods.
|
The Declaration of Independance When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
|
|
England
United States
|
The foundational principles in England are completely alien to and incompatible with the foundational principles of the United States.
a big thank you from me too. Please keep posting this stuff. Maybe eventually a few of them will care enough to read it.
Good post.
Yes. The only requirement for that office is US citizenship, no matter how obtained.
Being a dual citizen creates a political issue only, and is not a constitutional impediment to being a senator.
I suppose being a dual citizen creates a political issue only for purposes of NBC, as well. It doens;t matter if cruz is an NBC in fact, what matters is what a sufficient number of people believe and/or accept.
The way the issue of NBC is processed through the legal system precludes getting a legal answer, the answer will be determined by a political process. If Cruz gets enough votes, he'll be seated as president. There is no need for a court decision, only votes and Congressional acquiesence after the electoral votes have been tallied.
Either statement is true, but the outcome of analysis depends on which framework is used.
Is Cruz and NBC? It depends on which framework of analysis is used.
The presumption is that everybody running is an NBC. The presumption is tested or challenged by the political process, meaning the people decide. If enough people vote for Cruz, then he is a NBC.
I agree with you that Yosemitest's legal analysis is fatally flawed, but the argument he makes flies pretty well. If enough (and the right) people believe or say Cruz is an NBC, then he is. The truth of the matter doesn't control the outcome. The perception does.
Hypothetical: A female US citizen and male US citizen have a child in Kansas City, Mo. When the child is age 15, the family moves to Saudi Arabia for the father’s oil industry job and while there, the whole family is radicalized by Shiite’s and trained ala “Manchurian Candidate” (like the Hollywood movie - we’re asserting wild hypotheticals here) and returns for good in 30 years to run for office - first as a Governor, then President as a *wildly* popular candidate with the gift of gab. Is the child a natural born citizen of the U.S. under the Constitution, eligible for the Presidency?
Lee Harvey Oswald is NBC.
Charlie Manson is NBC.
Your ISIS Rape Child is NBC.
My radicalized candidate above is *definitely* NBC.
Good luck with any of them getting elected.
All sorts of folks are NBC. NBC is not some pure “Royal” lineage guaranteed to produce presidential material. Nor is it guaranteed to produce bonafide patriots with the country’s best interest at heart (Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Sharpton, most all liberal-progressives, Trump just a few years ago).
So after that plodding article that makes unsupported rebuttals, here is what we *CAN* say with no parsing, reading-between-the-lines, or need for a psychic-reader: In the Naturalization Act of 1790, written by a congress that included 8 of the 11 framers of the Constitution a mere three years later, wrote that children born outside the nation to citizens were to be considered “Natural Born Citizens” and that is the *only* time the founding fathers saw fit to include those three words (verbatim) in the legislative record. MY point is that if Cruz’s circumstance of birth would have been good enough for the constitution’s framers in that congress, then who am I to argue with them?
And would a constitutionally focused, younger CITIZEN candidate like Cruz have been the “foreign born, usurping” candidate that the founders feared (bearing in mind they considered his birth NBC in their own words) or would they have been more comfortable with a screaming, populist rich man who (out-of-pocket) could buy the office by purchasing every “barrel of ink” in the country for barrage advertisements and making off-the-cuff populist promises with no firm underpinnings other than a “trust me”? Well, we can only guess. But as to their opinion on how they felt about Cruz’s circumstance of birth, we merely have to read their own words in the legislative record.
As to what law actually pertains - we have to look at what laws were in place on the date Cruz was born. Beyond that, if the founder’s opinion counts for anything, I’ll side with them, I will accept Cruz as a candidate and wish him well.
But good luck with your candidate!
Does anyone really believe the founders would consider an "anchor baby" with Chinese parents a natural born citizen that would be eligible to serve as POTUS? What about the children of all the trophy wives living in the middle east or Russia are those all natural born citizens and also eligible to serve as POTUS?
Some adult female gets infatuated with say an ISIS fighter and goes to Syria, gets knocked up and has a child. That child lives with his dad until he is an adult then the child comes to the USA and that child is a NBC and can run for president?
Bump! The Marxist globalists greatest enemy is the uppity American middle class clinging to their birthright, the US Constitution. So the Marxist globalists never pass up an opportunity to weaken the US Constitution or the American middle class.
Redefining the meaning of a natural born citizen is a great victory for the enemies of our republic and Ted Cruz is more than happy to play his part. Zero got the ball by getting rid of the two American citizens parents part. Now Ted is going to spike it thru the hoop by getting rid of the born in the USA part. Natural born citizen is essentially meaning less now. Anyone born anywhere that has a single American parent (even if a dual citizen parent) is now a natural born citizen and can serve as POTUS. Totally ridiculous and as far from original intent as is possible.
But Hey Ted Cruz is a great conservative. /s
The Marxist globalists are very happy with the job Ted and Heidi are doing for them.
Not sure that was much more than a formality, as the US does not recognize dual citizenship.
“...Every single author of the U.S. Constitution understood this definition...”
Yet in the Naturalization act of 1790, written by a congress that included 8 of the 11 framers of the US Constitution, they wrote the following in clear, unambiguous language requiring no “reading between the lines” or psychic reading:
“And 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”
They actually used the three words (verbatim) “natural born Citizens”.
Who am I to argue with the founders, especially since they removed all doubt with their own words in the legislative record?
Good luck with your preferred candidate!
Very interesting thanks for sharing that story.
Thank you for the bump. I’m honored.
“...Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent...”
Only upon the scope of it’s case. It could certainly be used as an argument for a case specifically scoped to resolve presidential qualifications, but that argument has not yet been made, argued in that court, or resolved.
That’s not *MY* law — it is the nation’s laws of jurisprudence. So don’t take my word for it, google “judicial restraint” and argue with them. I’m just pointing out how your cited case does not (yet) settle the matter as regards presidential qualifications. No one has seen fit to grind that sausage yet.
Good luck with your candidate!
Don't sell yourself short. You can be a lot stupider.
“...And the children of citizens......plural, ?...”
Grammatically correct if they expected more than one citizen to give birth beyond the boundaries. A father is not required to be physically present at the moment of birth, so it could be reasonably expected that (for one example) an expectant citizen mother may prefer a family-member midwife and return to her birth family’s home nation to give birth.
Since they didn’t include the word “both”, then I guess I stand corrected in that the (what I thought was a clear phrase) can be nit-picked to death. So, can we say that the 2nd amendment only pertains to muskets since the founding fathers could never have knowledge of the AR-15 platform and we have to assume what they “implied” rather than taking their written words at face value?
“...If so, then how is it that a man who claims himself a constitutional scholar could make such an error?...”
The obvious answer is that you and he are diametrically opposed on the issue and only one of you can be right. My money is on an actual legal and constitutional scholar and not an “internet scholar”.
All joking aside, is there not one smidgen of doubt that perhaps you may be overlooking something to be so sure that you are right above all other legal and constitutional scholars who have weighed in on the subject in recent history? That you, WTFOVR, has some enlightened understanding that opposes those scholars who have devoted their adult education and professional experience to studying the law and/or the constitution?
Now I fully expect an egregiously egotistical “Yes!” in your reply, but I just want to allow the opportunity to be surprised.
This is the current law - You can tell by the repeated references to USCIS, which did not exist in 1970. (It was the INS back then).
The “current law” can’t amend the Constitution. You can’t amend the Constitution by mere statute.
There are three tests to determine eligibility: 1) natural born citizen, 2) attained the age of thirty five years, 3) been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Is determining a person’s age a political question, or is it a question of fact?
Is determining a person’s residency a political question, or is it a question of fact?
Of course, these are questions of fact.
Yet determining who is a natural born citizen is somehow a political question?
The consequence is obvious: the negation of one of the three Constitutionally mandated tests. No longer is there a fixed standard, but one defined by political power.
The Constitutional standard may not be expanded or diminished by Congressional act.
Eligibility is not a political question, it is a question of fact and law. The eligibility of a given person is determined by the Judiciary.
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.