Posted on 01/08/2013 3:15:17 PM PST by Seizethecarp
For starters it would be good if he or she was born in the US and his parents were Americans too. IMHO.
It shouldn't be THAT hard to find someone so qualified. Let's get someone who is U.S.-born of American parents; it's the very least we can do.
A generation or so ago, we wouldn't have even been asking this question, it would have been a given. Oh yeah, I remember George Romney's candidacy too.
Read the Yoo quote carefully.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution applies to persons born in the U.S. and naturalized U.S. Citizens. Statutory U.S. Citizens are U.S. citizens who derive their citizenship by legislation written by Congress and signed in law by the President.
SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the Citizenship Clause provides for the same dignity and protection of U.S. Citizens who are native born citizens as with naturalized citizens; with one exception, only a natural born citizen can be eligible for POTUS and VP.
Consequently, only a U.S. Citizen who has maintained their citizenship in perpetuity is eligible for POTUS. Statutory citizens apply for U.S. citizenship and are deemed to be citizens since birth; even though the parents may have waited years to apply for U.S. citizenship.
“Only a U.S Citizen, who maintains their citizenship in perpetuity can be a natural born citizen.”
Love it.
It is not simply a single point in time. It is from that time for perpetuity.
The ‘perpetuity’ word that provides a synonym for the word born in ‘natural born Citizen’.
From here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/born
“being in specified circumstances from birth “
I have always noted that the phrase uses ‘from birth’ and not ‘at birth’. ‘From’....i.e perpetuity.
The next key element that people must understand is that the status of ‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized’ are mutually exclusive at any point in time. If you are legally naturalized then it obvious your status of ‘natural born’ no longer applies.
Agree?
“My grandson was born in England but his father is a US citizen (my Texas born son) and the US embassey there made the grandson a US citizen that day and issued him a US passport.”
“True enough. He doesn’t need to be naturalized, which makes him a natural-born U.S. citizen.”
Thanks for your post - So glad someone understands how this works. US citizenship travels inside the US person - doesn’t matter what country they are standing in and their inside US citizenship transfers to their children no matter what country they are born in.
He was made a citizen by (man-made) law.
That is not natural.
True enough.
He doesn't need to be naturalized, which makes him a natural-born U.S. citizen.
==========================================================================
The grandson is a "citizen" because of U.S. statue law, which among other things, sets the rules for how citizenship is passed from parent(s) to child (i.e. age, years of residency, etc). Those rules can, and do change from time to time.
Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'")...
By its express terms, the Citizenship Clause does not protect persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, because such persons are not "born or naturalized in the United States." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971).
A U.S military base in England is not U.S. sovereign territory. That base is on loan/lease to the U.S. due to an international agreement known as a Status-of-Forces Agreement [SOFA]
Therefore, in the case of the grandson being born on a military base in England, to at least 1 citizen parent, that grandson is a "citizen" by way of a Congressional law. A statue. That person is *not* a 14th Amendment citizen, and definitely *not* a "natural born Citizen" having been born on a base that's on sovereign territory of another country, on lease/loan from that foreign country by means of a SOFA agreement.
The 14th Amendment has to do with citizenship and does not apply to any natural born citizen's presidential eligibility. There is no current consensus among "constitutional scholars" on the NBC definition. I have seen no federal court ruling on the NBC presidential eligibility of a person who was either self-expatriated or expatriated by parents or through adoption and then subsequently reclaimed citizenship and tried to run for president.
In the article at the top of the thread numerous law professors claim that Cruz would be OK...just OK, not actually eligible...but good enough after the Obama usurpation, I suppose!
This is one of thing Justice Fuller warned against in his dissent in Wong Kim Ark. Ultimately, he agreed in how the majority defined 14th amendment birth citizenship, but he wanted to make sure the WKA ruling protected the law of nation definition for natural-born citizens born in and OUTSIDE of the U.S. In its way, the majority decision does this, but only if one doesn’t get lost in the meandering dicta on English common law. Evidently the Rogers v. Bellei court got lost.
ineligibility bump
Someone born on a military base overseas (outside of U.S. territory), is issued a Consular Report of Birth Abroad form FS-240 if the parent(s) registered the birth at a local consular office or embassy. If the parent did not register the overseas birth, then in order to obtain proof of citizenship, one would need to file a Certificate of Citizenship (form N-560) which is issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Services.
It's necessary for those procedures because the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to those military bases not on soverign U.S. territory therefore require laws created by Congress to allow the parent(s) citizenship to pass to their child.
Some of those bases are (at least partly) controlled by the laws of the host country, the details of which are worked out in the SOFA agreement(s).
As an example, Royal Air Force Station Upwood in England, is owned by the UK's Ministry of Defense, yet is operated as a U.S. military base.
If a child is born on that base in England, the parents of that child must register for a British birth certificate (in addition to registering a Consular Report of Birth Abroad to obtain U.S. citizenship):
In case you didn’t know, all newborns need to have an American and British birth certificate. You need to register your infant in the British system within 42 days of birth. Your baby will need to be registered in the district of birth.http://www.501csw.usafe.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120514-018.pdf
Another example:
United States Naval Hospital Yokosuka, Japan
Information for Birth RegistrationImmediately after birth, parents fill out the “Information for Birth Registration” form and submit it to Birth Registration, Patient Administration, located on the 3rd floor.
...
The hospital birth certificate is the document you will need to apply for your child’s official certificate, which is called the “Consular Report of Birth Abroad” (FS-240). The hospital birth certificate is an unofficial document but may be used to update the sponsor’s page 2 and also for DEEPS enrollment. The FS-240 will be the official record of your child’s birth as an U.S. citizen. While it is not a birth certificate, the FS-240 does serve many of the same functions as a birth certificate. You will also need the FS-240 when applying for your child’s social security card.
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.