 |
 _  |
 |
|
_ |
|
Before your time at FR.
Euler Diagram proves the fallacy of the argument that simply being “born a Citizen” of the United States is identically the same as the constitutional term “natural born Citizen”. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/
Reliance on positive law (USC 8) over natural law {which is what the ‘born a Citizen’ argument boils down to} is not a good stand to take, but you can’t fix stupid.
The founders specifically rejected “born a citizen”.
Natural born citizen was chosen as more restrictive precisely to exclude the children of foreign national who are born with divided loyalties, allegiances and citizenship.
Anyone born with more than ONE nationality is NOT NATURALLY a citizen.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Sorry, but Vattel did NOT use the term NBC. He used the term “indigenes”, which is both an English and a French word with the same meaning in each - an indigenous person. The first time NBC was connected to Vattel was in an American translation made 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was written.
Natural born citizen was simply an update of “Natural Born Subject” - a term long used and well known to the Framers. In fact, before the revolution, they wrote to King George and called themselves natural born subjects.
The Mass legislature used NBS and NBC interchangeably:
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
And the US Supreme Court has already said the term NBC is rooted in English Common Law:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” - Wong Kim Ark
Your whole argument is IRRELEVANT as the Congress has the exclusive and enumerated power to establish the uniform rule(s) of naturalization. That includes who is a natural born citizen and who is not.
If you want change, change Congress or get Congress to change the laws
Ted Cruz?
The constitution describes;
1) natural born citizens,
2) naturalized citizens,
3) and aliens.
There is no other class of super citizens.
If you gain citizenship by birth, you are eligible. If you had to be naturalized you are not. If you are an alien you are not. And nobody until the 1960s started defining anchor babies as gaining citizenship by birth. That is the problem.
If two people come here legally, and then become naturalized citizens, their child born afterwards will be NBC.
Wake me when the first court, anywhere in the USA, keeps a US-born person off the ballot based on “NBC” theories.
Never going to happen. Complete waste of time.
You don’t get to adopt your own definition of Natural Born Citizen. Since the Constitution was silent on that point, such a clarification can only come from an opinion by the Supreme Court or by an amendment to the Constitution itself. The courts have made it clear that they do not want to weigh in on this issue, they prefer for the voters to decide.
Thank you for that. That is exactly what I learned while in school. Back when they actually taught students in school.
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
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.
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.
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.
It certainly didn’t keep obozo out of the WH and in our shit for 8 years as he methodically aided and abetted various enemies.
And YES, the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN clause means the candidate is to be the child of a couple, BOTH OF WHOM ARE ALSO NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENS.
The INTENT of the clause was to limit, insofar as possible, any loyalty to another country.
Nancy Pelosi and others in the DNC, in their psychotic zeal to foist the first black president on the nation, FALSELY & KNOWINGLY FRAUDULENTLY VETTED OBOZO!
The need to be tried and, if found guilty, JAILED!
No it is not.
Being a Citizen of the World apparently qualifies anyone to the President.
And not a surprise since American citizenship has been rendered meaningless thanks to the No Borders lobby running both of our political parties.
Which is one reason that they all hate Trump.
Trump is the last American patriot who will ever be President.