Posted on 01/16/2019 7:05:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
A Lesson from History. Is Being a ‘Born Citizen’ (aka Born a Citizen) of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! One needs to be a ‘natural born Citizen’. Adjectives mean something, especially in our Constitution!
(Excerpt) Read more at cdrkerchner.wordpress.com ...
Don’t try and conflate things. You need to read ... 8 USC Section 1401 which is part of U.S. Naturalization Law. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Paine wrote that the kings and queens of England were often of foreign blood, or married into the position. Paine said that only the President of the United States was in "full natural or political connection with the country."
Paine himself was a foreigner. He was credited as a Founder because of his Revolutionary War writings, but was not a Framer of the Constitution. Still, he was an influential writer before he was ostracized for attacking the Church. In 1791, he reflected the prevailing understanding of the Presidency as excluding "half" foreigners, which I believe meant the posterity of at least one non-citizen.
Paine believed, in 1791, that a person with non-citizen parents did not have "full natural or political connection with the country."
I'm not aware of any other contemporaneous writings by influential authors at the time of ratifying the Constititution that attempted to describe the intent of the natural born citizenship criteria besides Paine's writing in The Rights of Man.
-PJ
“Shes not eligible.”
She’s not even a citizen in my book. She’s a court created citizen. And since only Congress has the authority over naturalization, she’s a CINO. A citizen in name only. Like any other anchor baby out there.
Glad this is being posted now. We have got awhile before the time becomes critical. We must work hard to disallow Harris running for president due to her citizenship status.
The time to fight this out is NOW instead of waiting till later. This will likely end up having to go through the court system and we all know how arduous that can be.
Yes indeed, Kamala Harris (who is not a natural born Citizen) was born with citizenship of three countries ... one via her father who was legally here, one via her mother who was legally here, and one via birth in the USA per SCOTUS finding in Wong Kim Ark. Citizenship and allegiance are opposite sides of the same coin. As a Citizen of a country you get its protection but you also get its demands on you for allegiance. Thus Kamala Harris was not born with “sole allegiance” to the USA. We do not want a person to be Commander in Chief of our military who does not have sole allegiance to the USA. That is what the founders and framers intended when they selected the term “natural born Citizen” as a qualifier for future Presidents after the founding generation was gone. The “natural born Citizen” clause is a national security clause to restrict who can be the Commander in Chief of our military. John Jay said that in his 1787 letter to George Washington when Jay suggested adding the natural born Citizen requirement to the presidential eligibility clause. He wanted to minimize the possibilities of foreign influences on those in the future who would become commander in chief once the founders and framers were gone.
The supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. Not natural law or positive law - period.
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
governor Jindal?
Electric Graffiti is the only of you who was around for the last grand argument on this subject here at FR. I was and right in the middle of all of this including citing and arguing Supreme Court decisions. You are beating a dead horse.
The last argument did provided much cover for Barack Obama who had a real problem with his birth certificate and his citizenship, but it had nothing to do with natural born citizen, Vattel or any of this. His problem is that he became an Indonesian citizen when he was adopted by his step father and never reclaimed his U.S. Citizenship when he turned 18. The reason, he applied to Occidental as a foreign student and did it again when he applied to Columbia. He spent millions of dollars ensuring that such evidence was suppressed and the “Not a Natural Born Citizen”, “Born in Kenya” nonsense helped to continued his deception.
Have fun, but it would be more productive if you would dig a hole in your back yard, fill it in, and dig another one. Repeat, repeat, repeat, etc.
I’ll throw in a wrench here.
Castro just threw his hat in the ring
to run for POTUS. His grandmother was
an illegal alien from Mexico. Castro’s
parents were never married (his mother,
being the daughter of an illegal alien).
which makes him ineligible.
One condition where a natural born citizen may experience their citizenship and then have that citizenship restored by naturalization: (hypothetical of course)
A person born as a NBC, (assume a US citizen parents and on US soil) decides to immigrate to another country. For this argument, lets say a person of ancestry XYZ who wishes to return to their roots and goes back to the “home land” and becomes a citizen of that country. After a decade or so of living there, the home land goes to pot because of some political movement. I will pick on socialism for this example. The person then decides to return to the US and seeks to return to US citizenship.
They would need to be naturalized as they lost their NBC and even citizen status upon accepting citizenship in another country. This is in accordance with the right of Congress to establish the rules of naturalization and includes when citizenship is lost.
ref: Title 8 section 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
Excellent point. But I’m sure you must also be aware of John Jay’s July 1787 letter to George Washington specifically hinting to him as the presiding officer over the Constitutional Convention to put in the natural born Citizen qualifier in order to minimize foreign influence for the office of the person who gain command of the new nation’s armies. See http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251 The convention then of course added the grandfather clause see the original Citizens, the founders and framers, were all born with foreign influence on them. Also see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud
In my opinion you are correct that Obama’s most immediate problem was that he was an illegal alien due to still being an Indonesian.
That’s why he had the phony SS# 042-68-4425.
The “born in Kenya” was the red herring.
It didn’t matter where he was born.
His foreign national father made him a British subject at birth even if he was born in the Lincoln bedroom.
Gov Bobby Jindal is not a natural born Citizen either. See this link for a report about him and others: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S
I’ll probably need to add more to that list for the Election2020 cycle.
You made lots of good points. Here is a link to a graphic presentation of a natural born Citizen’s three legs: https://www.scribd.com/doc/185258103/Three-Legged-Stool-Test-for-Natural-Born-Citizen-to-Constitutional-Standards
Some more answers to the typical questions about the term “natural born Citizen” and it being in the U.S. Constitution: The Who What When Where Why and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term in Our U.S. Constitution
I merely posted another freepers words. His name is in the first line.
Thanx
OOPS. Here’s the link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution
Vattel’s Influence on the country’s founders and the Constitution’s framers: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers
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.