Two Candidates NOT Born in the US Received Electoral Votes in 1796 Presidential Election [vanity]

me ^ | 21 Feb 2016 | me

[matt1234]

To shed light on the Cruz birther issue, I researched the question: "Has a candidate NOT born in the US ever received electoral votes in a presidential election?" The answer is "yes." In the 1796 election, James Iredell, born in England, and Samuel Johnston, born in Scotland, both received electoral votes. I did not find evidence that these votes were invalidated by Congress, which they can do and have done; but I did not research that extensively. Links with evidence at post #1?

[DaveA37]

“....have you not even read the phrasing in the Constitution?”........

We have too many “lawyers” and wanna be lawyers in today’s world. The Constitution says what it says and NO “twist the truth” lawyer is going to, or should ever be allowed to change it. PERIOD and end of discussion.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe so, but those arguments are based on a political agenda, not on practical applications of constitutional matters.

[Alberta's Child]

Like I said ... Nobody knows for sure where Jackson was born. If, for example, he was born in a remote area that later became Kentucky, nobody ever would have known it.

[Alberta's Child]

This country has a government whose leaders are basically bought by foreign governments. It has repeatedly sent its military all over the globe on missions that have no relevance to our national interests, and to enforce mandates established by the United Nations -- an international body that has no standing in U.S. law. We now have U.S. Supreme Court justices citing foreign law in their court decisions.

All of this has taken place under the leadership of "natural born citizens." So I'd say this provision of the U.S. Constitution has done absolutely nothing to protect the citizens of this country from foreign influence.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

Article 2, section 1, subsection 5:

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 years a resident within the United States.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

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 years a resident within the United States.

[arthurus]

Dumping one provision of the Constitution because someone deems it irrelevant in the modern age opens wide the door to dumping other provisions of the Constitution because someone thinks they are irrelevant in the modern age.

[Redmen4ever]

Yes, people who were citizens at the time of the founding, even thought “foreign born,” were eligible. In addition to the two persons who received electoral votes in that election, this included Alexander Hamilton (born in the British West Indies, but a citizen at the time of the Founding). Sometimes, I hear people assert that Hamilton wasn’t qualified, but he was.

Another person whose qualification was at one time controversial was Vice President Charles Curtis. Curtis was born on an Indian reservation (his mother was a member of an Indian tribe) in Kansas Territory, back in 1860. At the time, the status of Indians on reservations was, well, controversial. At a later time, the Supreme Court ruled that Indians on reservations were citizens of the United States (because the tribal nations were sufficiently subordinated to the U.S.). Under the theory that natural born means citizen at birth, he was natural born because at least one of his parents (his father) was a citizen regardless of his place of birth.

[Alberta's Child]

I get that. I wouldn’t dump anything. For the “natural born citizen” requirement, I believe a Constitutional amendment to change it — or at least clarify it — is in order.

[Alberta's Child]

I’d also suggest that changing provisions of the Constitution related to procedural and governing matters is far less benign than changing provisions of the Constitution that reflect inalienable rights.

[Redmen4ever]

Since you think Cruz was a natural born Canadian as opposed to being both a natural born Canadian and a natural born American (and now having renounced his Canadian citizenship, is a person of no citizenship), I have a question:

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz propose that the United States practice of considering children born in the United States to foreign citizen parents who are here on temporary visa or who are here illegal NOT be natural born U.S. citizens. (Possibly, the President could simply direct that the practice of recognizing them as such be ended. Possibly this would require an act of Congress or even a Constitutional Amendment.)

If we were to make this change, to what country would persons born here to such parents be citizens?

[WhiskeyX]

“Like I said ... Nobody knows for sure where Jackson was born. If, for example, he was born in a remote area that later became Kentucky, nobody ever would have known it.”

It is a distinction with no relevance whatsoever to the natural born citizenship, citizenship, or Presidential eligibility of Andrew Jackson, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio. He was born in the Waxhaw Settlement area which is nowhere near Kentucky or Tennessee. The only reason there is some confusion about which colony/state in which he was born is due to the fact that the Waxhaws Settlement straddles the border between North Carolina and South Carolina, and because his mother gave birth at an uncle’s farm while traveling on the way back to her home after having her husband’s funeral and burial. The distances are very small and nowhere near to the other colonies/states.

[WhiskeyX]

now that you’ve had your monumentally irrational rant, let’s take a look at the realities of what you had to say.

“This country has a government whose leaders are basically bought by foreign governments.”

Only some of the government leaders are bought and paid for by foreign governments and only to some degree and in some matters enriching the offenders in power and/or money. The problem existed long before the United States, with one colonial governor splitting the proceeds of the pirate booty with Blackbeard the Pirate. It is only possible because persons like yourself keep putting these crooks into office, like the support for pretenders and liars like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

“It has repeatedly sent its military all over the globe on missions that have no relevance to our national interests,”

The primary purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to deter and, when necessary, combat hostile foreign military forces, preferably outside our borders; so your indiscriminate accusation is irrational and completely contrary to Constitutional law.

“and to enforce mandates established by the United Nations — an international body that has no standing in U.S. law.”

That is another blatantly false statement. The Constitution expressly grants the President and the Congress the authority to engage in such an international organization. However, the leaders, such as Ted Cruz, you choose to elect are responsible for overextending this delegated authority in ways which are unconstitutional.

” We now have U.S. Supreme Court justices citing foreign law in their court decisions.”

That has to be one of the most ignorant and silly comments yet. All of U.S. law is based upon foreign law precedents that are properly cited in U.S. court decisions.

“All of this has taken place under the leadership of “natural born citizens.”

Wrong again! It took place under the leadership of foreign citizens pretending to be lawful U.S. citizens, such as Chester Arthur and Barack Hussein Obama, not to mention who knows how many Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and others who you have helped to get elected as you are no with Senator Ted Cruz.

“So I’d say this provision of the U.S. Constitution has done absolutely nothing to protect the citizens of this country from foreign influence.”

Which is yet another false statement and extreme hyperbole.

[Alberta's Child]

Let's start by identifying all of the irresponsible statements you've made here:

It is only possible because persons like yourself keep putting these crooks into office, like the support for pretenders and liars like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

However, the leaders, such as Ted Cruz, you choose to elect are responsible for overextending this delegated authority in ways which are unconstitutional.

It took place under the leadership of foreign citizens pretending to be lawful U.S. citizens, such as Chester Arthur and Barack Hussein Obama, not to mention who knows how many Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and others who you have helped to get elected as you are no with Senator Ted Cruz.

You have no idea who I've helped elect and who I've voted for, which means you have no basis for these stupid, inane statements here on FreeRepublic.

Now that you've had your monumentally irrational rant, let's take a look at the realities of what you had to say:

Only some of the government leaders are bought and paid for by foreign governments and only to some degree and in some matters enriching the offenders in power and/or money.

Oh, I see ... so that must mean it's OK.

The primary purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to deter and, when necessary, combat hostile foreign military forces, preferably outside our borders; so your indiscriminate accusation is irrational and completely contrary to Constitutional law.

The Constitution clearly spells out a process through which the U.S. military is to deter and combat foreign military forces. The U.S. government has spent several trillion dollars on military campaigns all over the globe since World War II -- none of them involving a formal declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution.

How many military facilities did the U.S. have in foreign countries when the Constitution was ratified?

That is another blatantly false statement. The Constitution expressly grants the President and the Congress the authority to engage in such an international organization.

However, the leaders, such as Ted Cruz, you choose to elect are responsible for overextending this delegated authority in ways which are unconstitutional.

And what ways would that be?

That has to be one of the most ignorant and silly comments yet. All of U.S. law is based upon foreign law precedents that are properly cited in U.S. court decisions.

Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and William Breyer cited foreign laws and court decisions in several "gay rights" and death penalty cases back as far back as 2005. Are you suggesting that these foreign legal precedents have any place in U.S. law? Justice Scalia didn't think so. His dissent in these cases was clear: "The basic premise of the court's argument -- that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world -- ought to be rejected out of hand."

I'll stand with the late Justice Scalia on this one, dude -- no matter how "ignorant and silly" you think this is.

[RegulatorCountry]

They were citizens when the Constitution was enacted, therefore they were eligible. There were no natural born citizens until the Constitution was in force. Even those born in Virginia or Massachusetts were born in England, prior to the existence of this country.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Article II Section 1

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 years a resident within the United States.

Apparently they don't have you read the Constitution for civics any more.

[SatinDoll]

Before I answer you question I want to address the natural born Canadian birth of Sen.Ted Cruz. One way to renounce U.S.citizenship is by voting in another nation.

The Vietnam War was ongoing at the time Rafael Cruz and Eleanor Wilson moved to Canada. Neither supported the U.S. activities in southeast Asia and both voted in Canadian election(s). When little Teddy Cruz was born in 1970 his birth was not registered with the U.S. Embassy. He was Canadian because his parents were recognized as Canadian.

Dual citizenship was not recognized by Canada until 1976/1977. So when Teddy left Canada with his mother in 1974, the only way he could have entered the U.S. was on his mothers Canadian passport.

It is up to Sen.Cruz to fix his citizenship. A person born in another nation is not eligible to be President.

Children born in the United States to foreigners can be registered with the U.S. government or registered with the Embassy of the parents nation.

Some foreign governments do not recognize **birthright**; Mexico does not, so a child born in the USA to one or more Mexican citizens are Mexican citizens themselves.

Mitt Romneys father, George Romney, was born in Mexico but was a U.S. citizen due to the Mexican laws about citizenship. Being born in Mexico does not equal citizenship.

To answer your question, just because a child is born in the USA does not automatically mean they are citizens. If the parents are long term resident aliens, then yes, the baby can be a citizen. If the parents are here temporarily OR come from a nation that does not recognize birthright (such as Mexico), then too bad, so sad, the baby is not a U.S. citizen. These are how our laws exist now. They are not being enforced.

Let me give you an example. A good friend of mine was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, while her mother was visiting relatives. Her father was a U.S. citizen and the parents residence was in Los Angele, CA. My friend was a Mexican citizen because her mother had not yet naturalized as a U.S. citizen. When she was 18 years old she naturalized as a U.S. citizen herself. Do you see how the existing laws work? I do not believe we need to alter the laws.

[PJBankard]

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a US Territory at the time.

[Redmen4ever]

A child born in Mexico of a Mexican-citizen parent and a US-citizen parent is a natural born US-citizen regardless of the laws of Mexico. IF Mexico doesn’t recognize dual-citizens that is Mexico’s problem. It takes a lot to renounce US citizenship and the US has no problem with dual-citizenship.

With regard to a consular report, this can be used as definitive evidence by a person whose parents obtained the same for their child. But, it is not necessary. See Justice Thomas discussion of the matter of the power of Congress to regulate the condition of persons born overseas to U.S. citizen parents in his opinion in the 2012 Zivotofsky v. Clinton case.

[Godebert]

You seem to use 'Citizen' and 'natural born Citizen' as if they were the same thing. There is a difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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