Three Children of the Founder Who Proposed the 'Natural Born Citizen' Clause Not Born in U.S.

Godfather Politics ^ | 1/11/2016 | Gary Demar

[conservativejoy]

Jay is described as "an American statesman, Patriot, diplomat, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, signer of the Treaty of Paris, and first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–95)." He was also the United States Minister to Spain from September 27, 1779 to May 20, 1782 where three of his children were born:

"The happy marriage of John and Sarah Jay produced six children: Peter Augustus, born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, in 1776; Susan, born and died in Madrid after only a few weeks of life, in 1780; Maria, born in Madrid in 1782; Ann, born in Paris in 1783, William and Sarah Louisa, born in NYC in 1789 and 1792 respectively."

Alexander Hamilton's original draft of the Constitution did not include the "natural born citizen" provision. It stated simply that "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

This was not enough for Jay who on July 25, 1787 wrote the following letter to George Washington, the presiding president of the Convention:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

It's important to note that if the Natural Born Citizen requirement had been applied as some are applying it today, James Wilson (born in Carskerdo, Scotland), Alexander Hamilton (born out of wedlock, raised in the West Indies), and Robert Morris (Liverpool, United Kingdom) would not have qualified since they were born abroad to parents who were not American citizens. They were by definition "foreigners." This is why Article Two, section 1 includes an exception for their specific circumstances:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen."

In effect, they were incorporated into the citizenry of the United States even though they were born abroad to parents who were not United States citizens:

"While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed 'citizen' to 'natural born citizen' without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate."

"Without explanation" is the problem.

Let's go back to John Jay. Remember, it was Jay who wanted the "natural born Citizen" requirement included.

Here's the question: Would Jay's two surviving children have been eligible to be President since they were born in Spain if the exception had not been written into the Constitution since his children were born prior to its passage and on foreign soil?

Did he really have his type of situation in mind when he proposed the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement, that children born abroad to parents who were born and raised in the United States would be excluded from running for President of the United States out of a divided loyalty? It didn't seem to be a problem for Hamilton, Wilson, and Morris who were born abroad to foreign parents.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who was a United States citizen. He lived in Canada for four years but "grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School." (H/T: Politifact)

These facts make Ted Cruz more of an American than some of the drafters of the Constitution.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Many of the early Presidents were foreign born.

[SubMareener]

It didn't seem to be a problem for Hamilton, Wilson, and Morris who were born abroad to foreign parents.

DUH! Because they were covered by the "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" part of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

[El Cid]

Many of the early Presidents were foreign born.

Recent research into the archives have also scandalously revealed that George Washington was not born in the United States!
Shocking, I know.

[WhiskeyX]

“Did he really have his type of situation in mind when he proposed the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement, that children born abroad to parents who were born and raised in the United States would be excluded from running for President of the United States out of a divided loyalty? It didn’t seem to be a problem for Hamilton, Wilson, and Morris who were born abroad to foreign parents.”

The children were not born under the allegiance of any foreign sovereign, because they enjoyed the diplomatic status that excluded them from the jurisdiction of the foreign sovereigns. Consequently, they did not acquire any foreign allegiance, become a foreign subject, or become a foreign citizen at birth. Ted Cruz became a foreign citizen at birth, and he acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of the immigration and naturalization laws that naturalize at birth the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad.

[conservativejoy]

So if it extended to their children born abroad, it extended to the children of citizens born abroad, just as the Act they wrote in 1790 said, an Act signed by President George Washington:

The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: "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".

[AuntB]

“Many of the early Presidents were foreign born. “

That is misleading. They were born on THIS soil before the Constitution was signed. They weren’t born in some foreign nation.

There were only NINE. And they were all born in the colonies, NOT a foreign nation. Unless you’re talking about CRUZ (CANADA) and Obama (Maybe Kenya)

1. George Washington (1789-1797) was born in 1732, in the British Colony of Virginia, and was a British subject, until the formation of the Government of the United States of America in 1789, when he became its first president.
2. John Adams (1797-1801) was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735.
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) was born in 1743 in the colony of Virginia.
4. James Madison (1809-1817) was born in 1751 in the colony of Virginia.
5. James Monroe (1817-1825) was born in the colony of Virginia, in 1758.
6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) was born in 1767 in the colony of Massachusetts.
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born in 1767 in the colony of the Carolinas.
8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) was born in 1782 in the colony of New York.
9. William Henry Harrison (1841) was born in 1773 in the colony of of Virginia. He died in office from pneumonia.
http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html

[DiogenesLamp]

He was also the United States Minister to Spain from September 27, 1779 to May 20, 1782 where three of his children were born:

Even under English Common Law, the children of Diplomats have always been "natural born subjects."

Beyond that, even Vattel says that the children born of those serving their nation in foreign countries are "natural citizens."

This is a silly smoke screen.

[randita]

Last I looked, we were not a sovereign nation until the Constitution was ratified. The births of Jay’s foreign born children predate that . Your exclusion does not apply.

El Rushbo: “It’s settled. Cruz’s mother was a citizen. Therefore he is. Deal with it.”

[randita]

That is misleading. They were born on THIS soil before the Constitution was signed. They weren’t born in some foreign nation.

By this rationale, "anchor babies" are U.S. citizens, yet Cruz is not?

And before you bring up anything about the status of parents, the parents of seven U.S. Presidents were born out of the U.S.

http://www.presidentsparents.com/presidents-born-outside-usa.html

[AuntB]

“By this rationale, “anchor babies” are U.S. citizens, yet Cruz is not?

And before you bring up anything about the status of parents, the parents of seven U.S. Presidents were born out of the U.S.

http://www.presidentsparents.com/presidents-born-outside-usa.html “

Seriously? You see this as any kind of logical comparison? You are talking about this nation BEFORE it was a nation! The 9 presidents BORN BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION were all born on this soil, NOT in foreign nations like TED CRUZ!

[Berlin_Freeper]

That is misleading. They were born on THIS soil before the Constitution was signed. They weren’t born in some foreign nation.

Not misleading at all. I don't get what "THIS soil" is supposed to prove. Many of the early Presidents were - born in a British Colony, controlled by England and was a citizen of England and pledged allegiance to the British Crown.

Al so this is funny in an odd way:

There were only NINE.

I said many, you confirm "NINE". That is many.

Sorry our history has you in a capitalization tizzy, but your problem doesn't change historical fact.

[Yosemitest]

Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Also notice that the Supreme Court has backed up that definition!

See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So your statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[WhiskeyX]

“Last I looked, we were not a sovereign nation until the Constitution was ratified. The births of Jay’s foreign born children predate that . Your exclusion does not apply.”

That comment demonstrates how little you know, which is really a shameful ignorance on your part. The United States became a sovereign nation upon the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. This U.S. sovereignty as a nation gained international recognition with its formal recognition by France, Great Britain (1783), and other nations in the remaining years of the 18th Century; the adoption and ratification of the Articles of Confederation; and the adoption and ratification of Constitution of the United States.

“El Rushbo: “It’s settled. Cruz’s mother was a citizen. Therefore he is. Deal with it.””

No one is arguing he is not a citizen. He is simply not a natural born citizen, and he is not eligible to the Office of the President or the Office of the Vice President. Even Senator Ted Cruz says he acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of the statutory laws governing naturalization,, which in turn govern the automatic naturalization at birth of children born abroad with a U.S. citizen mother and alien father. The Constitution granted the congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization to make (datus) aliens to be “considered as” if they were natural born citizens with respect to some but not all rights and duties of actual natural born U.S. citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find a section or clause that grants the power to birth (natus) a natural born citizen, instead of making a (datus) made naturalized citizen.

[entropy12]

I have no problem if a child was born to 2 US citizens while they were visiting a foreign country or on a temporary job assignment abroad. I do not like candidates who have only 1 US citizen parent at the time of birth of child.

[WhiskeyX]

The Constitution explicitly grandfathered those born before the adoption of the Constitution into eligibility, which you are now dishonestly omitting and disregarding to mislead readers.

[conservativejoy]

Thanks for that information. I have never believed the term “natural born” required tow citizen parents, but some folks think so.

[conservativejoy]

It truly is. I think the term “smoke screen” describes it perfectly.

[Duchess47]

I have finally learned it doesn’t do any good to engage Cruz supporters on this. They will argue semantics, use deceptive statements, quote parts of laws to justify Cruz running for President.

It’s just an indication of the weakness of their arguments.

[WhiskeyX]

You omitted the fact the court commentary was dict and it was not binding court precedent. You also omitted the fact the court grossly erred in that dicta, by making many false claims of the evidence, the historical precedents, and contrived conclusions. In other words, you cited authority is non-binding garbage that should cause the justices responsible for the dicta to be impeached.