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 ...
As I said, you are advocating for a more foreign U.S. Presidency. I am wholeheartedly opposed to your opinion.
I am not advocating for a more foreign Presidency.
I am advocating that we take the Constitution to mean what it actually means, not what some people wish it meant.
As soon as we start claiming the Constitution means something other than it means, whether we think that our false interpretation is “good for the country” or not, then we approve people twisting the Constitution to mean anything they want it to mean.
Aside from which, it’s just wrong. It’s just wrong to twist the Constitution and claim that it means something it never meant.
And now you are trying to dodge after you were caught. There is no need to read your mind. You have repeatedly told us over and over what your opinion was; That the founders didn't care about foreign parentage. (The very distinction between your side and mine.)
It is not a case of needing to read your mind. You have informed us as to your mindset, far more often than I wanted to hear about it.
As for reading the founders mind, that too is unnecessary. One only need know that they weren't fools to realize they wouldn't advocate a position that obtains foolish results.
I cannot stretch the interpretation of his words into any such meaning.
The Framers may well have been horrified that a man of Barack Obama's or Ted Cruz's parentage could become president. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't prove they forbade it.
Also the notion that they would have been horrified of it is incompatible with the notion that they wouldn't have forbade it. They were horrified of Foreign involvement in the Executive Branch, and they DID forbid it.
Carson may not be firm on the 2nd amendment, don’t rush to judgement.
Since when have you been talking about the Constitution?
Then, you turn around and try to use the Constitution as a bashing tool with your lecture about twisting it.
Last time I checked, the term Natural Born Citizen is not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
Back to the subject...Please support your argument that a person born in another country by a foreign father and an American mother is a Natural Born Citizen.
Any reference to Ankeny is an automatic dismissal of credibility. Along the same lines, any of the modern court rulings are nothing more knee jerk reactions to long established false precedent, rather than an actual review of the facts or merits of the case.
None of them ought be taken seriously.
At its foundation the term Natural Born Citizen points directly to the properties of blood and soil. That is, one is born in the borders of our country (soil) and born of American Citizen parents (blood).
By its very definition, the term foreign denotes a lack of blood or soil connection to a country.
Any argument that advocates for a U.S. President who lacks a blood or soil connection to this country is actually advocating for a foreign Presidency.
One of the most amusing things about Jeff's position is that he is advocating so strongly for the Usage of English Law in deciding the eligibility of our Chief Executive, all the while not realizing that not even the English use this method for determining the eligibility of their own.
You cannot become King of England merely by being born in England. For that matter, it doesn't really even matter where you are born. It isn't germane to the King's eligibility. The ONLY thing which matters regarding a King's eligibility is blood.
Jeff Keeps demanding we adhere to a policy which not even the English use!
You're right. It isn't. There was actually no need to define it, as virtually everyone understood what it meant. And virtually everyone understood that people born here in America, whether their parents were citizens or not, was a natural born citizen.
Back to the subject...Please support your argument that a person born in another country by a foreign father and an American mother is a Natural Born Citizen.
I've already supported it extensively, by quoting what our early authorities said natural born citizen meant, and by quoting what they said was required to be eligible to the Presidency.
I gave around 30 quotes from early authorities. This includes a virtual "Who's Who" of our most prominent early legal authorities. About the only major early American legal authority I can think of offhand who isn't on that list would be John Marshall. He has been cited as evidence for two citizen parents, but his quote does NOT support that argument.
St. George Tucker is is on the list. Joseph Story is there. William Rawle is there. James Kent is there. Zephaniah Swift is there.
I guess you must have missed those quotes, since I have not posted them in this particular thread. I will post those quotes below.
NONE of them support the idea that anyone born in the US ever had to have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
In fact, some of them quite DIRECTLY contradict that idea. Here's one:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
I have also explained how the Supreme Court quite decisively found that a child born on US soil was a natural born citizen, even though his parents were not US citizens. And the dissent in that case recognized that the ruling made him eligible to run for President.
I will include my posting on that as well.
And these two bits of commentary are not all there is out there. There's lots more evidence. And in spite of what you might have heard and believed, almost all of it goes in the same direction. Unless it's been twisted or misrepresented.
And in each of those cases, I can also explain exactly HOW the evidence has been twisted or misrepresented.
Right now I'm working on summarizing yet ANOTHER view of the history and law. No matter which direction you approach the question from, if you're honest, they all lead to the exact same place.
The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America
"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).
This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
March, 1787, “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.”
October, 1787, “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.”
November, 1788, “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 March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis 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 many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances. 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…”
This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
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."
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.
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’)
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. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.
Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”
And again.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
Born a citizen.
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Native citizen.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
Where are the opposing quotes from early America that say that citizen parents were required for any person born on US soil? Aside from physician and historian David Ramsay, who was neither a core founder, a legal expert nor even a lawyer, and who was voted down 36 to 1, in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison, THERE ARE NONE.
US v. Wong Kim Ark: The Case that Decided the Status of Persons Born on US Soil to Non-Citizen Parents
The US Supreme Court case which definitively decided the status of children born on US soil of non-citizen parents was US v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898.
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
"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."
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN 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."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.
It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN 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.
Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.
It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.
This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.
It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
This claim completely and absolutely misunderstands or misrepresents how legal precedent works.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
We should also note that while birthers make this "they stopped short of saying Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen in the final statement" claim for US v Wong Kim Ark, they take the EXACT OPPOSITE approach with their pet case, Minor v. Happersett.
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
Still, they insist that those two sentence of side commentary in Minor are "binding precedent," although they are completely unsupported by any authority or argument whatsoever, although they are completely irrelevant to resolving the case, and their conclusion is not explicitly stated in the final statement.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
It is 100% clear to any honest person that this is a thoroughly dishonest approach to the two cases.
Or to put it another way, it is simply a way of LYING about what these cases said.
The truth is that Minor had virtually nothing to say on the subject, and US v Wong Kim Ark handed down an absolutely clear precedent that natural born citizenship does not require citizen parents for persons born on US soil.
All of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course birthers do, every day, since that is the only way they can possibly try to maintain the fantasy.
Back to the subject...Please support your argument that a person born in another country by a foreign father and an American mother is a Natural Born Citizen.
First, it's clear that (with very rare exceptions) a person born in THIS country, even of non-citizen parents, is a natural born citizen of the United States.
The question is whether being born a US citizen abroad gives one the status of natural born US citizen.
Unlike the previous question, this question has never been definitively answered by the courts.
Nonetheless, the weight of legal scholars is that such people are natural born citizens as well. I think there's a good argument to be made that "natural born citizen," by the time of the Founding, really had come to include such people as well. And there's a very good argument to be made that the Founders did not want such people to be excluded from Presidential eligibility. This is shown by the fact that our First Congress passed a law explicitly stating that such people were to be considered natural born citizens.
Yes, a subsequent Congress, 5 years later, dropped the words "natural born" from their replacement Act. So again, it's not 100% crystal clear. But I think that the courts would ultimately find such people to be natural born citizens as well.
In another post, I said that I thought the odds of Cruz being found eligible were at least around 20 to 1.
Not one of the afore-mentioned authorities ever says citizen parents were required for those born on US soil to be natural born citizens. Some, like Rawle, are quite clear that citizen parents were NOT required at all for such people to be natural born citizens.
Why do you continue to oppose the actual evidence, and to claim it says what it doesn't say? Aren't the real Founding Fathers and our real Constitution good enough for you? Why do you have to insist that they, and it, say things that they, and it, never said?
As for the Supreme Court, it is equally crystal clear to anyone rightly interpreting legal text, that the brief 2 sentences in Minor are PURE dicta. And the statements in Wong are crystal clear precedent. The Supreme Court says it doesn't take citizen parents for a person born on US soil to be a natural born citizen, and NEVER DID.
In fact, someone earlier (I think it was 4zoltan) posted a John Marshall quote that actually DOES support the historical understanding of natural born citizen.
So as far as I can recall, that makes EVERY really major early legal authority that I can think of, who supports the historical understand.
Maybe there are a couple of authorities on the first Court that I might look up, though.
IF, as he contends -
This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States.
IT WOULD NOT BE WRITTEN LIKE THIS:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
-----
To whit;
AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING - The first three words TELL you its an act of Naturalization. If someone was already a Natural born subject OR natural born citizen, they would REQUIRE NO 'naturalization' [Not to mention the only TYPE of citizen that CAN be made by an Act of naturalization IS a naturalized citizen]
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.”
IF, as Jeff contends they are the same, the sentence would have read 'shall be deemed natural born citizens', but it does not. Why all the extra verbiage?
Because the Founding generation was in a unique position - having been born prior to the country itself, they could not be natural born citizens ....BUT because the country was, in effect, born around them, they WERE entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens
-----
No where has anyone shown anything to prove the naturalization acts passed at the birth of country were intended to operate in perpetuity.
This is another bypassed point of logic, IMHO,
IF the State legislatures had intended natural-born citizen concept to operate in perpetuity, they would NOT have used legislative acts, as legislative acts have sunset clauses.
No....they would have put them where ALL perpetual legislation belongs.....in the State Constitutions.
---------
I agree with your earlier post, joseph20;
Any argument that advocates for a U.S. President who lacks a blood or soil connection to this country is actually advocating for a foreign Presidency.
It's a very common sensical comment. Too bad common sense doesn't seem all that 'common' anymore.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
In any event, it seems to miss my point, which was simply that the phrase “natural born citizen” was used absolutely synonymously and interchangeably with “natural born subject” in law by the State of Massachusetts.
In these statutes, it simply didn’t matter which one they used. For their purposes, both meant exactly the same thing.
In those days, they naturalized foreigners by an act of the legislature. Of course, they would eventually move to a more efficient system.
There were foreigners, and there were those who were natural born subjects/citizens, those who were born citizens.
And when the Legislature made foreigners citizens like those who were natively Massachusetts/US citizens, they said, “We’re going to give these folks all the privileges of natural born subjects.”
Or, “We’re going to give these folks all the privileges of natural born citizens.”
First they would use one term, then the other. Except for the slight implication of subservience to a King implied by the word “subject,” there was no absolutely difference between natural born citizen and natural born subject.
Of course, “natural born subject” would eventually give way completely to the use of the term “natural born citizen.”
Except... it didn’t even do that 100%.
There is at least one State Constitution (I forget which one, and there may be more than one of them) that still uses the old term “natural born subject.”
Anyway, that was the point.
It's also very common sense that generally speaking, anyone born within a realm or country is a member of that realm or country.
It's perhaps not quite as "common sense" now as it used to be, due to the ease of travel between places in the era of fast ships and airplanes.
But it used to be ABSOLUTELY common sense.
That's why the Founders, and those in English law before them, adopted that rule. And it was based on the Biblical principle that God had established governmental authorities for nations, and one should reasonably obey those governmental authorities. One should render unto Caesar that which was due to Caesar.
Pay your taxes, obey the laws that had been put in place to create an orderly and just society. Be a good citizen. These were all Christian values.
But what kingdom or realm or nation were you a part of? Well, if your parents were Macedonian but they were living in Rome, and you were born in Rome, you were also most likely going to grow up there.
So a simple, definite common sense rule was adopted, particularly by the English: If you were born in England, you were English. Unless, of course, you were the child of a foreign ambassador, or of foreign royalty, or of an invading army. THOSE folks wouldn't be English.
And we adopted the exact same rule.
You can certainly argue that the English oversimplified things, and that they OUGHT to have made the rule more complicated.
And you can certainly argue that the rule is obsolete in the era of Boeing 767's, and by golly, ought to be changed.
But they thought it was quite a sensible, common sense rule. And so did our Founding Fathers. And for that reason, it was the rule that they adopted.
You can even argue that the rule they adopted no longer adequately meets the purpose they adopted it for.
You can say that their purpose was to protect the United States from any and all foreign influence. For that reason, they said the President had to be a natural born citizen.
And they thought that rule would protect us from foreign influence, and for a long time, it did.
But now anybody can travel anywhere in the world within hours.
So (you could argue) if we want to fulfill the purpose they adopted the rule for, we ought to update the rule by requiring that people be not only born US citizens in order to be eligible to be President, we ought to require that they be both born on US soil and have US citizen parents at the time of their birth.
You can make that argument.
It’s not a superbly strong argument, given the fact that the first Congress immediately clarified that those who were born overseas to US citizens and got their entire education in a place like France were also eligible to be elected President.
And it’s not a superbly strong argument, given the fact that the Framers of the Constitution specifically provided that one only had to live 14 years in the United States, total, before becoming President.
So even in the Framers’ day it was perfectly possible for someone to be born a natural born US citizen (by whatever measure you want to use), spend the next 21 years and their entire formative years in some place like France, sail to the United States, enter politics, and be elected President at age 35.
That was perfectly possible.
And they MEANT for it to be that way.
So while they WERE concerned, to some degree, about “foreign influence” (mostly about adult royalty swooping over here and buying up the Presidency), they don’t seem to have been NEARLY as concerned about it as you make them out to be.
For all those reasons, that argument is not a superbly strong one. But really, it’s the best argument you could make.
It wasn't whether one term would eventually give way to the other, so I'll file that under 'if you can't refute the logic, change the question'.
For you edification, it's the implication that you continue to purvey that children of aliens born on American soil TODAY are Constitutionally *natural born citizens*.
You do so by basing your entire argument on the assumption that the exception of the Naturalization Acts are still in operation today as they were then.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
That you can no more base a viable, rational argument on a fallacy any more than you can base a viable, legal argument on a violation of the Law.
Fruit of the Poisoned Tree, and all that.
Putting words in someones mouth is not a rebuttal.
It's an exercise in intellectual masturbation.
If the Founders and Framers established a Constitutional rule, and that Constitutional rule has never been changed by Constitutional Amendment, then the Constitutional rule still applies.
Until and unless we change the Constitution by Amending it.
This is really very basic and elementary. Our Founding Fathers established a Constitution. That Constitution is the fundamental law of the land.
If you don't like the Constitution the way they set it up, then change it. They provided a process for that, and that Amendment process has been used now 27 times.
But don't misrepresent what the Founding Fathers and the Framers meant.
I thought fidelity to the Founding Fathers, the Framers, and the Constitution was the mark of a Patriot. I thought fidelity to those founding principles was the entire purpose of this site, and the shared goal of those who congregate here.
It's certainly MY goal.
And that is why I am not indulgent of you or anybody else twisting the Constitution. Even if you think it's for a good purpose.
You do so by basing your entire argument on the assumption that the exception of the Naturalization Acts are still in operation today as they were then.
No, I do so by basing my entire argument on the available EVIDENCE as to what the Founders and the Framers meant when they said "natural born citizen."
You and some others base YOUR entire argument on what you THINK would be best for the country: A complete elimination of the possibility of any foreign influence at all upon all persons who might be elected President.
That sounds like a noble and America-interest goal, and I suppose that it is.
There's just one problem.
That's not what the Founders and the Framers said.
So the proper approach, if you believe you have a better idea than the Founders and the Framers, is to change the Constitution that they wrote.
One of the great things about the Founders and the Framers is that they KNEW they were not giving us a perfect system of government. They KNEW that it had some flaws in it, from the very beginning.
Perhaps the greatest flaw in the INITIAL system they gave us was its toleration of slavery. Some of those who founded the country made a sad compromise with that institution so that they could simply get the country launched. They believed that if they were able to launch this country, eventually the institution of slavery would be extinguished. And it was.
I think they also knew that other things might need to be fixed, and that times might change, necessitating changes in the Constitution.
So they provided a means for us to Amend that document.
Again, if you believe they should have made it so that only those born on US soil of US citizen parents could be elected President, then you can certainly make that argument. There is something to be said for it.
As for "putting words in your mouth:" I haven't. I am simply suggesting to you what your best REAL argument would be.
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.