Canadian citizenship hurdle to be U.S. president?

WND ^ | 2/23/2010 | WND

[rxsid]

"It doesn’t prevent it. It doesn’t need to. Having possessed dual citizenship does not disqualify one for the being Presidency.

Of course not. /s. Again, the intent of the framers in distinguishing "citizen" from "natural born citizen" right there in the very requirement itself, meant that they believed someone with divided citizenship, divided loyalties was "OK" in the one and only Commander in Chief position.

Brilliant. Have a nice day.

[rxsid]

Sounds like she would be a “natural” predecessor to Barry...on so many levels. I’m sure the state run media can help to persuade the sheeple to vote for her!

[Sloth]

“Natural born citizen” means what it says — a person who is a citizen at birth, naturally, as opposed to a foreigner who acquires legal citizenship later by “naturalization.” If the Framers had meant something different I’m confident they were smart enough to have said so.

[Electric Graffiti]

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

,I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.









Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?

[annelizly]

as a michigander...a piece of advice.

NO!!! NO!!! NO!!! RUN SCREAMING THE OTHER WAY! OVER MY DEAD BODY! LOOK WHAT SHE DID TO MICHIGAN!

[annelizly]

I have always questioned the validity of the percentage of people that voted for granholm for the second term. There is no way that wasn’t rigged. NO ONE wanted her back for the second term.

[El Gran Salseron]

The U.S. government does not recognize dual-citizenship so that she’s just wasting her breath. :-)

[STARWISE]

You’d be surprised to know how many FReepers
insist that a dual citizen is eligible to be POTUS.
And look at her ... she totally diverts folks away
from the most salient fact: her Canadian birth.

These inveterate, slimy scoundrels are everywhere.

[Canadian Outrage]

LOIL I agree. This woman is an embarassment to me, a Canadian. I do recall Chrissy Mathews however, I think a few years ago, thinking that she would be a wonderful candidate for President. He’s such a tool and she’s worse. They both belong in the same basket!! CO

[Canadian Outrage]

You are correct to do that. For once I can say I am PROUD of my Prime Minister. He’s a gem. I don’t say that lightly either. I know him personally and one of my very best Christian friends is best friends with him. He honestly is a gem. He will quit before he ever compromises his principles. We have waited such a long time for this but there are so many dumb liberals in this country. I believe they are the vocal minority. I pray they are. Because they are so stupid as to make a fellow citizen like me ashamed and raging mad at the same time. CO

[rxsid]

"“Natural born citizen” means what it says — a person who is a citizen at birth, naturally, as opposed to a foreigner who acquires legal citizenship later by “naturalization.” If the Framers had meant something different I’m confident they were smart enough to have said so."

Anchor babies are "Native" born citizens (by statue, i.e. not Naturally). They are born here, on soil, to foreign parents. They would not be considered "Natural" born citizen because there would be a question as to their allegiance and their citizenship (which could be dual, or even triple if the parents were from different foreign countries).

The framers didn't make the term up on the fly.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: dregs has this company by certain duties and subjected has its authority, they take part with equality has its advantages."

French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

 

The same defintion was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

[El Gato]

A naturalized citizen can be governor, witness the Governator of California. So can one who was a citizen at birth due to statute law (applies to her case) or the 14th amendment (does not so apply, since she was born in Canada.)

For Constitutional purposes, she's a naturalized citizen, and the Supreme Court has so ruled. But naturalized citizens can be Senator, if they have lived in the US long enough. Ditto for Representative. They can be Supreme Court Justices, even Chief Justice. They cannot be President. Niether can 14th amendment citizens, who do not have two citizen parents, for they too are not "natural born".

[rxsid]

Yes sir! Correct.

[cripplecreek]

I’ll proudly vote for Pete Hoekstra for governor but he himself has said he isn’t eligible to be president due to the fact that he was born outside the country.