Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
(edit for clarity)
The challenge was, support the claim that naturalized citizens are eligible. Bayard does not make this claim.
Bayard’s claim that “it is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’” is unsubstantiated and contradicted by law.
The Congress of 1790, many members of which were Framers, enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “natural born citizens”.
Congress in 1795 enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “citizens”.
Bayard’s error is the claim that it is “not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’”. He cites no law which supports this claim, a claim which in fact is contradicted by law: the citizenship of children born outside the United States to citizen parents has always depended upon operation of law, only during 1790-1795 were such children declared to be in law “natural born citizen”, since that time such children have been declared to be in law “citizen”. Bayard’s claim is opposed by law.
It seems to me that the essence of this debate is that Ray76 believes that there is a distinction between a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” and a “natural born citizen.”
Others, like me, don’t believe that there is any such distinction. From my point of view, here are the statutory categories of persons who are born outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States, yet would qualify as natural born citizens because they also qualify as Citizens of the United States at Birth. We’ve already had an Article II, Section 1 elected official who was not born in a state and whose mother only had US citizenship by virtue of a statute, Vice President Charles Curtis, born in Kansas Territory, before statehood to an American citizen father and a tribal American Indian mother who gained her citizenship by virtue of her marriage.
From the “Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth” section of the U.S. Code:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
A citizen of the United States at birth BY statute is a naturalized citizen.
A citizen of the United States at birth BY birth is a natural born citizen.
What law?
You can't point to any such law. It doesn't exist.
What you mean is: "Bayard's claim... is unsubstantiated and contradicted by my opinion. And that of a few other geniuses on the internet."
Because there's no law that contradicts Bayard / Marshall / Story / Kent.
The challenge was, that naturalized citizens are eligible. Bayard does not make this claim.
Now you're just trying to squirm your way out. It won't work.
The entire discussion was about whether people born US citizens abroad (like Ted Cruz) are natural born citizens.
Bayard says clearly and unequivocally that they are. Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent all agree.
Bayard’s error is the claim that it is “not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’”. He cites no law which supports this claim, a claim which in fact is contradicted by law: the citizenship of children born outside the United States to citizen parents has always depended upon operation of law, only during 1790-1795 were such children declared to be in law “natural born citizen”.
Obviously, the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent followed the same line of reasoning I referred to above, or one extremely similar. Because all of these giants of American Constitutional law agree that Bayard is NOT in error.
Ah, but you're a birther. So that automatically makes you a genius of law smarter and more authoritative than Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Story, and Chancellor Kent - combined.
In your mind, I’m sure that’s true; but no court and no action of Congress agrees with you.
Since the 19th Century, a naturalized citizen is issued a Certificate of Naturalization. If a person is a citizen and was not issued a Certificate of Naturalization, then they are a Citizen of the United States At Birth and eligible to assume the office of President.
Then the REASON others think otherwise needs scrutiny and I think there is one possible answer - TROLLS.
What law? Seriously? The Naturalization Act of 1795 et seq which naturalize foreign born children of US citizens declaring them in law “citizen”. Bayard’s claim is contrary to the letter of the law.
I’m surprised you cite Bayard. He never claims that naturalized citizens are eligible.
To support your claim that some naturalized citizens are “natural born citizens” and other naturalized citizens are not, you would have been better served by citing the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Only between 1790 and 1795 when the 1790 act was repealed was there such a distinction in law.
It is worth noting that during this period those naturalized as “natural born citizens” were distinguished from the others naturalized as “citizens” by parental US citizenship.
The only time a class of persons was explicitedly declared in law as “natural born citizen” such citizenship was dependant upon parental US citizenship.
The law at the time of Cruz’s birth declared him in law a “citizen”.
A Naturalization Certificate is issued to a person who became a U.S. citizen after 18 years of age through the naturalization process.
A Certificate of Citizenship is issued (upon request and upon supplying required documentation) to a person born outside the United States who derived or acquired U.S. citizenship through a U.S. citizen parent.
Well, I'm glad you understand the law and the Founders' intent better than Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent, and James Bayard, all of whom were among the most prominent experts in US law and pretty much contemporary with the Founders and Framers - with some of whom they undoubtedly discussed such Constitutional issues.
The law at the time of Cruz’s birth declared him in law a “citizen”.
As did the law at the time that Bayard, Marshall, Story and Kent said that such persons were natural born citizens.
What law does Bayard rely upon for his claim?
The Constitution and the rule of the common law.
What law do you rely on for your claim that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen?
And don't say Vattel. Because Vattel's opinion is not in itself the law of the United States, unless the courts say it is. Vattel is an opinion of a foreign writer on the law of nations. Other writers on the law of nations had different opinions. And citizenship, the relationship between the individual member of our nation and our national government and community, was never a matter of international law. It was a matter of our own domestic law.
Where in the Constitution is a foreign born child of parental US citizenship declared to be a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen”?
In 1790 the husband and wife were one person in law, hence the “two citizen parent” claim.
Between 1790-1795 is the only time a class of persons was explicitly declared in law as “natural born citizen” and such citizenship was dependent upon parental US citizenship.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”? Or are we to conclude that the other children born with parental US citizenship - you know, those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, ie in country - are “natural born citizens”? Or are those other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Who then are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
A child born in country to citizen parent has always been a citizen, without operation of law, this has never been doubted. These are natural born citizens.
I guess you haven't been paying attention. I recommend you go back and carefully read all of my posts in this thread.
And then the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Those first two words of the citizenship clause: “All persons...” are definitive and all inclusive.
And now you know the rest of the story.
I’m not going to fish through your posts. You show where in the Constitution a foreign born child of parental US citizenship is declared to be a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen”.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”? Or are we to conclude that the other children born with parental US citizenship - you know, those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, ie in country - are “natural born citizens”? Or are those other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Who then are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
A foreign diplomat is not under the jurisdiction of his host nation, he has diplomatic immunity. Some try to extend this known exemption or exception to children born abroad of citizen parents in military service, but that is apparently not the case, otherwise the numerous unsuccessful Bills proposed over the past several decades to change that would have been wholly unnecessary.
Children born to US citizen parents not under diplomatic immunity are born under the jurisdiction of their host nation. Some such nations claim every birth within their jurisdiction as subject to such, ie a citizen. Others don't.
This is what a conversation with a birther inevitably comes down to.
1. A flat refusal to accept the evidence.
This is usually expressed with something like, "I'm not going to fish through your posts," or "I'm not going to address the rest of your crap," or "I'm not going to read your crap."
2. A demand that must be met, otherwise the birther is "right." It's better if this is an impossible demand.
For example, "You show where in the Constitution a foreign born child of parental US citizenship is declared to be a 'natural born citizen' or a 'citizen'."
Never mind that the birther can't show where in the Constitution (or anywhere else, for that matter) that it says a "natural born citizen" is "someone born on US soil of two citizen parents." If the non-birther doesn't meet the birther's impossible demand, why then, he must be "wrong."
I refer people who aren't completely committed birthers back to the evidence. Bayard writing in 1834, with the approval of Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Story, Chancellor Kent and other experts in the law, was crystal clear that you didn't have to be born in the United States in order to be a "natural born citizen."
That's clear, it's explicit, and it had the support of a near Who's-Who of our top early legal experts.
On the other side, we have an equally clear proclamation from one of our other top early legal experts: Rawle. You didn't have to have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, either, as long as you were born in the United States.
Absolutely, crystal clear.
Who were our other great early legal experts? Well, St. George Tucker, and maybe Zephaniah Swift, and maybe Chancellor Sandford of New York.
Both Tucker and Swift said, generally, that natural born citizens were those born in a State. Sandford said that if someone was born in the US of alien parents, could there be any doubt that person was eligible to be President? No.
And we have virtually exhausted the list of top legal experts in the early United States.
So the birther thing is done, to anyone who has the ability to recognize truth. The opinion of our top early legal experts is literally unanimous against it.
shut up ass hole
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3045713/posts?page=551#551
In post 552 I asked
Where in the Constitution is a foreign born child of parental US citizenship declared to be a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen”?Your reply in 553, "I guess you haven't been paying attention. I recommend you go back and carefully read all of my posts in this thread."
And now you post this:
This is what a conversation with a birther inevitably comes down to.Which is an obvious attempt to deflect from your inability to substantiate your claim.1. A flat refusal to accept the evidence.
This is usually expressed with something like, "I'm not going to fish through your posts," or "I'm not going to address the rest of your crap," or "I'm not going to read your crap."
The fact is that the Constitution nowhere declares a foreign born child of parental US citizenship to be a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen”. The foreign born children of parental US citizenship are declared by the Naturalization Act of 1790 to be "natural born citizen", and by the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, to be "citizen".
We all know this to be true. Why do you deny such a simple fact and instead resort to ad hominem attacks?
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.