Posted on 02/16/2016 8:43:51 PM PST by omegatoo
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical- presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
“never got around to passing any laws having to do with citizenship, certain people would still be deemed citizens of that nation”
Citizenship is a legal construct. Laws are necessary whatever you want to call the method of recognizing citizenship.
The founders clearly recognized the principle or jus sanguinis over jus solis. Not all people born on US soil were citizens.
The “certain people” who are by nature citizens of a country are, according to Vattel, citizens by virtue of their parent’s citizenship. This is natural.
If your legal conception of a nation is a kingdom, then who is “naturally” a subject revolves more around jurisdiction and the rights of the king. If your legal conception of a nation is a representative government by the consent of the people, then who is “naturally” a citizen revolves around the rights of the citizens.
The Constitution specifically cites the Law of Nations as a way of recognizing this natural law. Children are unable to consent to being governed. They are “naturally” under the care and control of their parents. It is obvious as the nose on your face that children get traits from their parents and have rights from their parents. When a nation recognizes the right of a child to be a citizen based on parental citizenship, it is recognizing a natural right.
So many people want to parse words with Clintonesque techniques. It is not that complicated.
The Constitution only recognizes two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized. A citizen is either one or the other in the US. In other nations there may be classes of citizens or subjects. Great Britain had a class of subjects called royalty. Only royalty could be king.
In the US, naturalization, the process of making a foreign citizen a US citizen, is done by legislative act (or treaty or amendment). Under our Constitution, the naturalization is “imperfect” (in the words of Vattel) because though it conveys every other right of citizenship, the right to be president or vice president is not conveyed.
The founders never contemplated the idea that masses of people would be without “settlement”. It was understood that people all wanted the ability to own land, build communities with likeminded folk, and provide for their posterity in this way. It was unthinkable that people would change careers, buy and sell their lands, and move around the globe to work for multi-national corporations. It was obvious to them under a patriarchal view of society that men were the heads of their families and represented their families in society. So property ownership, holding office, voting, and inheritance (including citizenship) were all paternal.
Regardless of anyone’s current opinion on this, these things have changed. They have changed fundamentally AND constitutionally. Women own property, vote, hold political office, and have rights when it comes to their children. And children have rights based on both their paternal and maternal relationships. The Constitution and law recognize fathers AND mothers in the basic structure of society, the family.
Cruz received his citizenship naturally from his mother at birth. This was recognized by the law in force at the time. He is a natural born citizen of the US and can become president.
“So why hasn’t Ted stepped up and had this matter settled once and for all?”
Exactly what do you think would resolve this?
Do you think a summary judgment would do it?
I am pretty sure that was what Trump suggested.
Do you really think that the issue would suddenly disappear then?
It is not possible for Cruz to get a summary judgment from the Supreme Court. So, it is not even possible for him to “resolve” it.
And even if the Supreme Court unanimously voted to recognize Cruz as a natural born citizen, there will be naysayers here who will simply claim the court got it wrong.
Cruz needs to focus on the campaign and filibustering Obama’s Supreme Court nomination. He does not need to get distracted by irrelevant court proceedings that will just be distractions.
The citizenship issue will resolve itself in due time.
“Evidently somebody thought that there was a distinction between a ‘Citizen’ and a ‘Natural Born Citizen.’”
Radix, you can do better than this. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution there were no “natural born citizens” of the US. Most were natural born subjects of Great Britain. The forming of the nation naturalized them. Naturalization is making a foreign citizen or subject a citizen of this nation.
So, no, there were still just two kinds. Try again.
“Just not correct. See above.”
No. You are not even wrong. You are less than wrong. You don’t even have a correct premise for your argument on this one. See above.
Enough with the foreign borns. I want an AMERICAN for POTUS.
>> I believe Donald has too much to gain by milking this to actually want it solved <<
Agreed fully.
Moreover, according to Judge Napolitano today on Fox, the case would probably be thrown out of court immediately as “frivolous” — meaning not only that Trump would have to pay court costs and the legal costs of the defendant, but also that Trump’s lawyers could be disciplined and even fined for filing a case that anybody should know is a total non-starter.
Therefore, even Trump’s bulldog lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, might be reluctant to file.
>> If this does end up in court, it could go either way <<
Sure. It could go either of these two ways:
(1) The judge reads the pleadings and dismisses the case immediately, due to its lack of ripeness. He also admonishes the plaintiff’s lawyers for their unprofessional conduct in bringing the case.
(2) The judge reads the pleadings, holds a brief hearing, and dismisses the case with prejudice, due to its obvious constitutional defects. He then lays court costs and the defendant’s legal costs upon the plaintiff, fines the plaintiff’s lawyers for filing so shockingly frivolous a case, and refers the lawyers’ conduct to their state bar association(s) for possible disciplinary action.
That is why the framers of the Constitution wrote the distinction between citizens and "Natural Born" citizens. It does not matter 'where' you are 'born' but how you are born. If both of your parents are citizens of the U.S. then you are naturally a citizen of your parents country. Your parents could be on a ship at sea in international waters and you would be born a natural citizen of the U.S. BOTH parents must be citizens of the U.S. for you to be 'born' a natural citizen of the U.S. This is not rocket science. Read the literature of the times. It was well understood and needed no expansion in the text of the constitution.
:-)
A Cuban-Canadian-American. Just great. No way he’s NBC.
Te 14th amendment does that on its own, and no court takes the constitution and "Act of Congress" to be the same thing. See Marbury v. Madison.
The poster in reply 8 said, "Congress has only power over naturalization. Cruz is a citizen via Congressional action. Ergo, Cruz was naturalized at birth." Because of the ruling in the Dred Scott decision African-Americans were ruled not to be citizens. It took the 14th Amendment, and the laws passed to enforce it, to grant citizenship to African-Americans alive at the time and for all African-Americans born in the future. Those are Congressional actions, and if the posters definition is correct then it means African-Americans could not be natural-born citizens since they were naturalized at birth. I think we can all agree that they are natural born citizens, which means the definition in post 8 is incorrect. Doesn't it?
If I understand your argument, it is based on holding that the constitution and Acts of Congress stand on equal footing. Both are, in effect, “Acts of Congress.”
Or perhaps your argument is that the 14th amendment has no force of its own.
My argument is that the definition makes no sense.
Your statement on its face says that the 14th amendment has ZERO force of its own, that it depends entirely on Acts of Congress. Can a court ever cite the 14th amendment as its authority, without citing what might be characterized as an "enabling" Act of Congress? They do. See WKA for example, on the subject of citizenship.
I find that proposition of yours to be kooky.
FWIW, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 predates the 14th amendment. See The American Nation: Primary Sources for the text of that act, as well as materially surrounding the proposal and adoption of the 14th amendment.
Yes they can. But the more accurate question would be does the 14th Amendment stand alone in defining citizenship? And the answer to that is the laws passed under the authority of the 14th Amendment do.
I find that proposition of yours to be kooky.
And I find a lot of these definitions of natural-born citizenship to be kooky as well. So there we are.
FWIW, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 predates the 14th amendment.
Because of the Dred Scott decision the Civil Rights Act was of doubtful constitutionality and could have been thrown out by the Supreme Court. Which is why its supporters also pushed through the 14th Amendment.
Sort answer, "no." But, as you know, the "yes or no" answer to that depends on the case in hand. The 14th amendment is enough, on its own, to decide WKA. The court looked to history, of course, but not to any sort of "enabling" act, to apply the 14th amendment to Mr. Ark. WKA involved a person who was "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." So, for that sort of case, the 14th amendment does stand alone in defining citizenship. The short answer becomes "yes," for a person born in the United States.
Looking to the other half of the first sentence of the 14th amendment, the only specification the constitution provides relating to naturalization, is that Congress is empowered "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," subject to approval by the executive. FWIW, the constitution could have, but did not, assigned that power to the executive subject to the approval of all or part of Congress, as it does for treaties and appointments. Regardless of which branch drafts the rules pertaining to naturalization, the contents of "uniform rule of naturalization" are unknown until those Acts are passed by Congress.
When a case arises that involves a person who is (or thinks they should be) naturalized pursuant to an Act of Congress, of course the Act is central to deciding the case. So, for those born abroad, the 14th amendment cannot stand alone in defining citizenship, except by the all-encompassing term, "naturalized."
The circumstances of birth and the 14th amendment are enough to distinguish those who are citizens, between "naturalized," and "not naturalized." See WKA, which does this "only two types of citizen" analysis, using the 14th amendment. The constitution establishes a jus soli arrangement for attaching citizenship under ITS terms. It allows citizenship involving jus sanguinis to be obtained by an Act of Congress, and such acts do exist. That the constitution standing alone establishes a pure jus soli arrangement is easy to show, because the citizenship aspects of the US Constitution are brief, see Art IV, Sec. 2 and the first sentence in the 14th amendment.
Those who demand more than the words of the constitution to ascertain how the citizenship-related clauses are construed can look to case law, which is, as far as the couple score cases I have reviewed, completely uniform on this point.
US Code is a rino.
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.