Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by Fai Mao
On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.
Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.
Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.
No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I'm going to DC this spring. Can you tell me where this statue is? I'd like to look at it firsthand. Is it near the Washington Monument?
I guess my hang-up is all of the inconsistencies surrounding the background of President Obama, for example; A bio with misinformation regarding his birth place, a bio he most certainly approved considering it had been updated twice, although his birth information remained unchanged for seventeen years. His associations and mentors throughout his life. An alleged fabrication of his life story and taking credit for the authorship of said story.
Overall you seem to present a good argument, however neither of us have any chips on the table. I am still reluctant to suspend my disbelief regarding this subject simply because of nature of the person; Barack Hussein Obama. It is akin to the O.J. Simpson trial, I just could not get out of my head the fact that his bloody foot prints were found at the scene of the crime.
What an incredibly poorly done article!
Is he somehow unaware of the basis of arguments to the contrary—or does he simply misstate and overlook them in order to make the contrary weak enough for him to shoot it down?
And this from a constitutional law professor!
This, IMHO, has caused one of the two BIGGEST points of confusion on the subject.
While it’s quite true that both British and US law acknowledged jus soli, the authority where it resides is quite different that what most people think-
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject.
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker,[annotated] Blackstone's Commentaries
Jus soli citizenship may HAVE been part of English Law, but the ‘King’ in America is the States. The power of denization is theirs, NOT the federal governments.
-------
Secondly, the repeated sentence from Vattel all the way to Wong Kim Ark ‘native, or natural born’ suggests a single type of citizen because the word *OR* is not an exclusive one [as in either ‘or’] , but a refining/ restatement *OR*.
Here’s the link for anyone who would like to see for themselves - Usage of the conjunction ‘or’
-----
So, IMHO, there are only 2 types of citizens; those made by Nature, and those made by man.
[snort]
And I'm Sophia Loren!
what exactly are you saying ark stated? look at it closely!
So you are going to be a moron on this thread too?
First you make the argument that anyone born in the United States is absolutely a "natural born citizen" fit to keep foreign influence out of the executive, even if they are the children of Illegal Aliens, or "birth tourists", and then you decide that THAT isn't even a necessary requirement. Now, it's anyone with an American Parent.
And for all this time you have been constantly asserting that there is no Jus Sanguinus basis for citizenship! "No Authority in HISTORY has ever recognized such a thing!" And now we witness you asserting that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen explicitly on a Jus Sanguinus basis.
Do you hurt yourself when you do these sorts of logical backflips?
I understand this is a long post. But for those who want to know the evidence from early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant, THIS IS IT.
It is just a collection of bits and pieces that Jeffery has perused from the past and cherry picked to suit his needs.
I have not included quotes from David Ramsay, a favorite of birthers, because Ramsay's treatise on citizenship was the centerpiece of a self-interested sore-loser campaign, he was not trained as a lawyer and therefore was not a legal authority, and (more importantly) he was voted down 36 to 1. This votedown was the source of the 1789 quote from James Madison, the "Father of Our Constitution." Future President Madison led the Ramsay smackdown.
And here Jeff shows his ignorance again. Dr. David Ramsey was not a sore loser. He was simply against Pro-Slavery Smith winning the seat. Anti-Slavery Ramsey came in third in the contest in South Carolina, and had he convinced the House of Representatives to eject Smith, The person who would have taken the seat would have been Commodore Alexander Gillon. Securing the seat for Alexander Gillion is not in the self Interest of Dr. Ramsey, it is a very good example of a selfless act.
French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
That Mazzei was a Friend of Thomas Jefferson is irrelevant. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being debated. He played no role in the deliberations. Beyond that, the Initial drafts of Article II which was submitted by Alexander Hamilton< and which required that one be merely "born a citizen" was voted down in favor of the current language.
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.
If they wanted the version you describe here, why change the Hamilton proposal?
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
Madison does indeed argue that the Jus Soli principle is the primary (In General) means of determining who is a citizen in absence of statutory law. It was a common practice to fall back on English Common law when no statute existed covering an issue, but this does not preclude the operation of a statute when one does exist. Madison makes it clear that a South Carolina Statue would have made all the difference. (Which also demonstrates he was addressing an issue of STATE Citizenship, not Federal Citizenship.)
It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us;
Furthermore, Jeff ignores Madison's reference to the Jus Sanguinus principle.
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage,
The point here is that Madison's preference for Jus Soli in this particular case is not proof that it is the Sole criteria for deciding whether or not someone is a "natural born citizen." Conflating the term "citizen" as being equal to "natural born citizen", is a common bait and switch tactic used by people such as Jeff.
The First Congress (1790):
"And 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.".
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
And why Jeff cites this act as somehow supporting him is simply a measure of his kookyness. Apart from the fact that what he quotes does not support his premise, (That "Shall be Considered" means exactly the same thing as "Is") he completely leaves out the part of the quote which utterly destroys his theory.
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
In a nutshell, this means that the children of a Foreign father were NOT EVEN CITIZENS AT ALL, let alone "natural citizens." And as Jeff pointed out, this decision to completely exclude such children from Citizenship was made by the Congress of which Madison himself was a part.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792): “No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Jeff, this might come as a shock to you, but "parentage" is a necessary component of birth. You can't have a birth without parents. Beyond that, a French source for American Law? Are you kidding me? Even overlooking the French aspect of it, at best it is ambiguous, at worst, it doesn't even support your claim.
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France.
As this occurred four years before the US Constitution was written, it has little relevance.
And you go on and on with your half truths, false equivalencies, and outright assertions without evidence. I am not sure i'm going to bother fisking the rest of your scrawl. You are starting to resemble Mr. Rogers in his "if you can't baffle them with bullsh*t, overwhelm them with volume!" methodology.
Natural Born Citizen is very simple and very clear. ONLY born on American soil, and ONLY if both, BOTH, I’ll say it again, BOTH parents are American citizens....
May I refer you gentlemen to the 48th Constitutional Amendment (AKA The Don Ho Amendment):
(a) If said or any candidate can stake a claim, reasonable or not, to birth in Hawaii to at least one American citizen parent illegally married or not to an African bigamist, that candidate shall assume the mantle of "Messiah to his Race (s)" and be proclaimed President without reference to election rules in any State or Federal Jurisdiction.
(b)This Amendment does not apply to any Republican, including Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, or Geraldo (puke) Rivera.
I am sure that when the present WH Recumbent gets around to placing one or two more Lesbocommies of any sex to the SCOTUS, all of this will be resolved to our satisfaction.
The problem comes with what judges and justices have said that Wong Kim Ark means over the last 115 years.
Specifically with regard to Barry Soetoro:
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana
A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, 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. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
they have not looked at the decision closely either-or reached for a conclusion to meet their agenda
it has not been decided by the ussc that children of non-immigrants or illegal aliens (subject to the jurisdiction)born in the us are indeed citizens, it is just (bad) policy
Seriously? You're still not rebutting a single point in Sourcery's essay.
As I commented in my last reply to you, the sum total of your voluminous replies on this subject have amounted to little more than rejection and denial of the reason and logic that's been presented to you.
I read what you posted on the subject upthread, and it reads like a mere cut and paste of various items you've collected. Nowhere do I see where you've made a cogent, thoughtful argument for your position.
However humble, my first response to you at least contained the germ of my personal reasoning on the topic.
I also noticed that you didn't give Sourcery a courtesy ping to your last comment. You've been around long enough to know that's expected.
For what it's worth, you're failing to make a convincing case for your opinion on the subject. The overall tone of your comments reveals an emotional, rather than an intellectual grounding in your position, which goes hand in glove with your failure to rebut the opposing view.
However, since neither of us can find the words, "US SUPREME COURT" on our paychecks, our opinions, nay the opinions of all on this site pro or con, count for naught.
The SCOTUS owes us one or two answers.
(1) "What is a citizen?"
(2) "What is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen that we can use?"
(3) Why exactly, are the children of illegal aliens to be, or not to be, considered citizens?"
(4) Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen? Is Cruz? Is Rubio? Is Jindal?"
Please note I ask 4 questions. Will you black-robed bumkissers GOYA and answer at least any two? I am easily satisfied.
The ultimate court of appeal in the US has had ample opportunity to address the issue. They have refused. It's fun to settle issues with bar fights. But it would certainly be more appropriate if the SCOTUS weighed in.
Great post, Mama. I completely concur, and would add that the Framers understood that distinction in citizenship without question - hence the phrase in Article II, Section I, "Natural Born Citizen".
One would have to believe that the Framers inserted that term haphazardly, to conclude that they had no intention to set the qualifications bar for President, any higher than for any other elected federal office.
I've read the Constitution many times, and can find no place where their language was imprecise or vague. These were some of the most learned men of the Enlightenment. Not only were they excellent craftsmen of concepts into words, but brilliant thinkers as well.
No - logic and reason (as well as written communications between the Framers) dictates that they were seeking to ensure that our Presidents had the purest degree of citizenship possible.
The wisdom of their thinking has been borne out in the treasonous conduct of the current President, whose lineage is decidedly split between America and his father's origins.
Until the Supreme Court accepts an appeal and rules on it, the lower court rulings stand.
That's the kicker.
Natural born citizenship comes from your natural parents' relationship to the political 'State'. It stems from Natural Law, and is thus ultra-vires , or beyond the legal cope of the power and authority of government to change.
All any governmental organization can EVER do is repeat the definition that previously exists.
-------
At this point down the slippery slope, do you seriously think they will acknowledge what they can't control?
I don't.
Such a well-said statement is worth repeating!
These folks are like lawyers fighting a case when the facts and evidence are not in their favor. The tactics and debate devices are identical.
They dare not argue the root logic and reasoning of the case, or they'll show the assembled that their case is standing on thin air.
You don’t have the credentials to understand what you are posting compared to true Constitutional Scholars like Dr. Herb Titus. Here is his credentials that solidify him as a true expert on the natural born Citizen subject.
Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
Ladies and gentlemen, take a look at these two graphs. It shows what a true Constitutional natural born Citizen is. Thanks.
http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/obama/naturalbornchart07292009.jpg
Both my wife and I are US citizens. Both of our children were born overseas when I was stationed in Germany. I find it hard to believe that both are not natural born citizens.
The SCOTUS owes us one or two answers. [...] What is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen that we can use?
By the way, the phrase as exactly written in the Constitution has unusual capitalization: natural born Citizen. In the spirit of preserving the founders' original intent I think it is wise to preserve their original spelling as well.
There are so many who claim that, regarding presidential eligibility, it is enough to merely be born a citizen. Yet our country's founders required more than just being born a mere citizen, for the Constitution does not state that one must simply be a "born citizen," but specifically states that one must be a natural born Citizen.
The founders deliberated and debated over the content of the Constitution for many months. I do not believe that they offhandedly added superfluous, meaningless words. If they had meant to allow the broader category of "born citizen" they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to further restrict the requirement to being a natural born Citizen, which clearly excludes many types of mere "born citizens."
I would dearly love to hear the SCOTUS expound at length on what type of born citizens are not natural born Citizens. Obviously the difference must be significant.
Personally, I think the answer is obvious - those born exclusively within our country's jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else. These are the natural born Citizens in my opinion.
I would guess that well over 90 percent of our population falls into this group. When it would be so easy to field an excellent ticket that includes only candidates qualified to this not very restrictive category, why does the republican party seem to be so intent on doing otherwise?
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.
