Posted on 01/11/2016 5:31:53 AM PST by iontheball
Three types. You obviously did not pay attention in HS government class or took that class after the liberals took over book publication.
The only time NBC is relevant concerns who holds the office of president Otherwise native born or naturalized are used. The constitution is clear the president must be born here of parents who were citizens. Otherwise even the illegitimate children of US soldiers during war could qualify.
Incorrect.
“Is it?”
Yes. Undoubtedly. Why?
1 - I am NOT saying the US is UNDER English common law. I AM saying the legal language in the USA, as of 1787, was determined by the meanings that had developed under English common law.
2 - Vattel never used the phrase “natural born citizen”. He did not use the French equivalent, and none of the translation of his work made prior to 1797 used NBC. They all used “The natives, or indignes”. Indigenes is still an English word that refers to the indigenous people. So if they had wanted to follow Vattel, they would have required the President be a “native citizen” or an “indigenous citizen”. They would NOT have followed Vattel by using a term Vattel never used.
3 - The legislatures of the early US had used NBC and NBS interchangeably, both before the US Constitution was written and afterward. If the ratifying legislatures used NBC & NBS interchangeably, then they obviously believe the terms WERE equivalents.
4 - The US Supreme Court has already ruled such in Wong Kim Ark:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
There is absolutely no doubt that legally and logically, the Founders were using the definition of NBS as the definition of NBC - not Vattel.
See post 43.
“The constitution is clear the president must be born here of parents who were citizens.”
That is my point. Natural is natural, not naturalized either at birth or later.
Mr. Cruz is naturalized at birth by operation of law.
In 2007, the entire United States Senate passed a resolution stating that John McCain was a natural born citizen.
“Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe also analyzed the
issue and came to the same conclusion—that Senator MCCAIN is a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President.
Our bipartisan resolution would make it clear that Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 on an American Naval base to U.S. citizens, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen. We should act today on a bipartisan basis to erase any doubt that Senator MCCAIN is eligible to run for President because of his citizenship status.
I ask unanimous consent that the legal analysis of Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: “
....
“MARCH 19, 2008.
We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only ‘‘natural
born Citizen[s] . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.’’ U.S. Const. art. II, § 1,cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born
Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.
The Constitution does not define the meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen.’’ The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by
looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790–91 (1983); and to the common law at the
time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase ‘‘natural born’’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s
territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen because
he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73–250, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such
children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as ‘‘natural born citizens.’’ Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
Senator McCain’s status as a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was
drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were ‘‘natural-born Subjects’’ were also ‘‘natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.’’ British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word ‘‘citizen’’ for ‘‘subject’’ to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two
terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34–35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress’s statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were ‘‘natural born’’ citizens
fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one’s birth made one natural born.
There is a second and independent basis for concluding that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was
sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen under the well-established principle that
‘‘natural born’’ citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655–66. The Fourteenth Amendment
expressly enshrines this connection between birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (‘‘All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. * * * ’’) (emphases added). Premising ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship on the character
of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown—including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies—were deemed ‘‘natural born subjects.’’
See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (‘‘Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king.* * * ’’).
There is substantial legal support for the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme
Court has explained that, ‘‘[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the surrounding 10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.’’ 0’Connor v. United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986).
Congress and the executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See, e.g., The President—Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att’y Gen. 113, 116 (1907) (recognizing that the 1904 treaty between the United States and Panama ‘‘imposed upon the United States the obligations as well as
the powers of a sovereign within the [Canal Zone]’’); Panama Canal Act of 1912, Pub. L. No. 62–337, § 1, 37 Stat. 560, 560 (recognizing that ‘‘the use, occupancy, or control’’ of the Canal Zone had been ‘‘granted to the United States by the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama’’). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within
a State, there is a significant body of legal authority indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign territory of the United States.
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause.
For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860—one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory.
Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack
Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961—not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
Senator McCain’s candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen,’’ but also with the Framers’ intentions when
adopting that language.
The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to
George Washington expressing concern about ‘‘Foreigners’’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61
(1911). It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical ‘‘Foreigner’’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.
Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ within the meaning of the Constitution.
LAURENCE H. TRIBE.
THEODORE B. OLSON.
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2008/04/30/CREC-2008-04-30-pt1-PgS3645.pdf
So is every child born in the United States...
“...is naturalized at birth by operation of law.”
EVERY...
SINGLE...
ONE...
OF THEM...
YOU INCLUDED !!!
Straight from the assertions presented by the CRSR, but which, logically, are immediately disproved by simply reading the rest of the sentence:
"... sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens…." or, in English: "are those who are born in the country, of citizen parents." Stated otherwise, whether denominated a "naturel," an "indigene," a "natural born Citizen" or a parrot, the entity at issue – in order to match its antecedent – needed to be born in the country to parents who also were citizens. Disputable nomenclature and labels aside, that concept is the crux of § 212, so that, whether one is called "natural born," "indigenous" or some other term, in order to qualify as such, one needed to be born in the country where the parents were also, at the time of birth, citizens.
In addition, the CRSR ignores the seventh and final sentence of § 212, which reads in French thusly: "Je dis que pour être d'un pays, il faut être né d’un pere citoyen; car si vous y êtes né d’un étranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans être votre patrie." Translation: "I say that in order to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a citizen father; for if [you] are born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of your birth, without being your country."
More addressing these issues here. I AM saying the legal language in the USA, as of 1787, was determined by the meanings that had developed under English common law.
It was not English common law haunting John Adam's, or English Common Law the courts declared would be the standard:
"John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me." These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)
In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution."
More here
"Are you thinking there is no difference between a Bill being introduced and a Bill passing Congress and enacted into Law?"
“Exactly correct. There isn’t a third category. Mama Cruz was born in the USA. She never renounced citizenship. No matter where Cruz was born he is an NBC.”
By that standard so was Obama. Yet many conservatives everywhere including here questioned it. Why?
Simply no. Not if anyone is honest.
The French had a phrase used for translating natural born subject, and Vattel did not use that phrase. Nor did he modify that phrase to make it apply to NBC. He simply did not use the phrase,. He was a lawyer, writing on international law, and he did not use the French term for NBS/NBC.
The English translations of Vattel available at the time the US Constitution was written used “Native” and “Indignes”, not NBC. The copy of Vattel George Washington borrowed used native and indigne, not NBC.
Further, they used the term NBC and the term NBS interchangeably, and it is hard to argue that people who use either NBC or NBS at random attach one meaning to NBS and another to NBC. That is just stupid.
And finally, the US Supreme Court has already discussed the issue, back in 1898.
It is over. The meaning of NBC is found in the definition of NBS as used by all the Founders their entire lives.
Vattel was a respected authority on international law - the “Law of Nations”. He was not, nor did he pretend to be, an expert on colonial law. He was used regularly for his knowledge of European law, but the only reference to Vattel in the discussions framing or adopting the US Constitution was one time referring to proportional representation by the states.
There is ZERO doubt that the meaning of NBC comes from the commonly accepted meaning of NBS. One can be ignorant, or stupid, and you are no longer ignorant on the subject. You may choose to be stupid, if you wish.
What a whopper! Not only did the Founding Fathers make use of it heavily (it was one of the two books George Washington never bothered to return to the library!), it was cited directly by name or quoted by the Founding fathers throughout their work. I do not know if it was only referenced once specifically within the confines of a constitutional meaning, but your attempt to de-emphasize the text is extremely dishonest.
Further, they used the term NBC and the term NBS interchangeably,
Which you do not actually bother to prove (you don't provide a single quote or source for anything you've said), but which in itself is entirely irrelevant anyway, since, from my same quote, for emphasis, "The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations"
It's also a stupid argument in and of itself, since obviously Vattel distinguishes between one who is, by nature, "of a country," and those who are merely naturalized. That can only refer to a natural born citizen, and is probably the reason why I cannot find a single translation of Vattel's work from any year that does not contain the phrase "natural born citizen," as that is the clear meaning of the text, though sadly I cannot find a translation from prior to 1790.
Another problem I forgot to mention by the way is that Blackstone’s commentary on English common law also defines natural born citizens as deriving— if not at times from both parents who are citizens— then from the father who is a citizen, though he removes the requirement of being born in the country.
I’ve not seen any definition from Blackstone that says differently, so, either way, in the case of Ted Cruz, he is not rescued here.
Once the oligarchs have use Barry Soetoro up, they would toss him to the wind to stop Cruz and place the hildebeast on the throne. Think about it ... if Cruz wins the election but before he is sworn in, the Roberts court nullifies his eligibility. Who takes the oath in January 2017? If the Republican ticket is nullified then you know whom is placed on the throne.
There is a statute that covers what to do if the president-elect is not qualified. The office doesn’t go to the opponent in election.
A grand ... lie. McCain was born in a Panamanian Hospital, not on the base. He was given a NC naming the base clinic. The cited document used that given BC, not the actual location of his birth. The same was true for Barry Soetoro, granting him the faux Hawaiian BC rather than requiring the actual BC to be entered into evidence.
If we accept anything less than original intent then it means that a Beirut-born individual with US citizenship and perhaps his foreign national parent (turned US citizen) with one parent citizen at birth could obtain the presidency. I see a problem ahead in light of how fast and easy immigration has been managed this last decade or so.
There are two types of citizenship, naturalized and born citizen. (The definition of born citizen has changed over time, i.e. anchor babies and perhaps soon illegals). There is a subset of born citizen which is a natural born citizen. This is a born citizen that would have no other nation having claims on them, i.e. born to U.S. Citizen parents on U.S. soil. This is exactly why the draft of the Constitution was amended by adding the word natural before the word born. This definition does not change over time which is why it is important to the security on the nation.
Like it or not, that is the historical record and the meaning according to those who crafted the document.
Aside from the founders (who by definition could not be natural born citizens thus the exception for them) there are only two known cases where someone who was not a natural born citizen became president - Chester Arthur and the current occupier.
Those that ignore the facts, and dissemble the plain and simple truth and meaning of the founders, provide the means by which new usurpers may claim the presidency thus hastening the great damage and decay that has already occurred to the Republic.
Respectfully,....
Correct. Born HERE (within US borders or territories) of PARENTS (note plural, both) who are citizens.
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.