Posted on 08/28/2013 8:45:24 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
From beginning to end, the debate over Senator Ted Cruz and his birth certificate has been silly. Like the "birtherism" debate surrounding Barack Obama, it shows that many Americans think our Constitution is a Harry Potter book of spells ("Mandamus! Habeas Corpus! Nullus indviduus mandatus!"). The "natural born" citizen clause in particular appeals to the mythological imagination.
The clause is found in Article II § 1 cl. 5, which contains three and only three requirements for a potential president: He or she must be 35 years old, must have lived in the U.S. for 14 years, and must be "a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
What was the reason behind this third requirement? Many people are convinced that the "purpose" of the Clause was to bar Alexander Hamilton (born in Nevis in the Caribbean) from the presidency. But the provision above says in so many words that anyone who is a citizen "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" can be president. Hamilton had become a citizen of New York by act of the legislature in 1782. He didn't become president largely on account of the whole being-shot-to-death-by-Burr thing.
In fact, in 1787, no one over 11 -- not George Washington, not John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson -- was a "natural born citizen" of something called "the United States of America." The first "natural born citizen" to enter the White House, by my count, was Martin Van Buren in 1836 -- who was born in 1782, five years before Philadelphia.
I don't think that the Framers were even thinking about potential presidents born to American parents abroad. Their concern was naturalized citizens, and it was a lot more immediate and urgent.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
That is a very important point. Denizens are unable to pass British citizenship to their children:
"Persons who were British subjects by denization could not pass on the status to their heirs."
Cited from the U.K. Border Agency, the Home Office on matters relating to immigration, permission to stay, work permits, citizenship, and asylum -- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/denization?view=Binary
Clearly, NOT all those born in the U.K. were natural born subjects.
The full quote, in a paragraph:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Most people reading that, and ALL judges reading that, understand that there wasn’t a subject change in the last sentence from an NBC citizen to a mythical “born in the US of non-citizen parents” citizen. Remember, “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.”
But if you cannot read a paragraph in Minor without twisting it, I cannot help you. You don’t need legal advice, but a class in reading.
Why not? The difference is expressed PLAIN AS DAY:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
The first "class" is referred to as natural-born citizens. The latter "class" is referred to as just citizens.
Poor reading comprehension skills do not negate Constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility.
Actually, the ENGLISH quit using the Jus Soli rule at least as early as the early 16th century.
I just posted information showing that Denizens could not pass U.K. citizenship to their offspring. The British Archives have Denization records going back to the early 16th century:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/naturalisation.htm#18296
It's quite clear that the "natural born subject rule" Gray wrote about in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling was purely a figment of his imagination. It hadn't been in effect in England since at least 1509.
By what distinction are the rights of individuals born in the same place, at the same time, different? Simply this: children born in England to an alien or denizen father were NOT natural born subjects.
We now all know why your side loses - it cannot read a paragraph. There is no distinction in Minor between a mythical NBC with 2 citizen parents and a non-NBC born citizen born to alien parents.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Citizens born fall under the NBC clause, and citizens created via naturalization.
But since it involves more than a sentence, I won’t expect you to understand.
There is no myth. The distinction IS indeed PLAIN AS DAY: "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or , as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
The first "class" is referred to as natural-born citizens. The latter "class" is referred to as just citizens.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization."
Citizens born fall under the NBC clause, and citizens created via naturalization.
Only in your imagination.
The USCIS specifically states otherwise. They currently clarify the following federal statute:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That hereafter a woman, being a NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN, who is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated or who has resided continuously in the United States since the date of such marriage, shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922."
http://books.google.com/books?id=a1Aclme7AMkC&lpg=PA173&ots=tI2kF8uU9w&dq=%22shall%20be%20deemed%20to%20be%20a%20citizen%20of%20the%20United%20States%20to%20the%20same%20extent%20as%20though%20her%20marriage%20to%20said%20alien%20had%20taken%20place%20on%20or%20after%20September%2022%2C%201922%22&pg=PA173#v=onepage&q=173&f=false page 173
By currently stating the restored U.S. citizenship of NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS as thus:
"The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-born OR NATURAL-born citizen (WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
http://web.archive.org/web/20130314041654/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
NATIVE-born citizen IS, even currently, divided into two different sub-classifications by USCIS: NATIVE-born citizen OR NATURAL-born citizen. Not all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens. Current fact.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization."
Citizens born fall under the NBC clause, and citizens created via naturalization.
Only in your imagination.
...Followed by actual facts proving Mr. Rogers WRONG.
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has recognized only two classes of U.S. Citizenship and Congress has passed no legislation altering or further clarifying the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Class One: Citizens of the United States At Birth/Natural Born Citizens.
Class Two: Naturalized United States Citizens
Class One can be president or vice president
Class Two: Cannot be president or vice president
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884):
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
[The citizenship clause] “section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Ah yes, the usual liberal/leftist whine, like saying ‘well, a judge or grand jury isn’t going to indict someone not caught committing criminal acts.’ The law exists because criminal behavior SOMETIMES gets discovered. Your little butt kissing assertion is tantamount to spitting in the face of the rule of law, as if voters would not vote differently even when your little barry bastard boy is exposed as a fraud, liar, and criminal. You are so desperate to cover for your little half-black, mostly arab demigod, And you folks are so well entrenched at FR now. Amazing
Class One: Citizens of the United States At Birth/Natural Born Citizens.
There is no Supreme Court ruling which conflates born citizen with natural born citizen.
That in itself should give you a clue. The Constitution requires a "NATURAL born citizen," not merely a "born citizen."
"The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
One born a foreign citizen in the U.S. via an alien parent whose country asserts jus sanguinis citizenship law is not "completely subject to the political jurisdiction" of the United States.
In regards to Elk v. Wilkins::
"The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
Again, one born a foreign citizen in the U.S. via an alien parent whose country asserts jus sanguinis citizenship law is not "completely subject to the political jurisdiction" of the United States. Such a person "owes allegiance and fidelity to a foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty."
Well, you have your opinion and I have a different opinion. My opinion is partially based on the fact that there have been 207 original jurisdiction challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. There have also been 91 state and federal appellate court rulings and 20 appeals for Certiorari or application for stays, injunctions or extraordinary writs at the Supreme Court of the United States.
No court and no individual trier of fact has ever ruled that Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen and sixteen courts have ruled that he does indeed qualify as a natural born citizen. Counting the three, five, seven and nine justice appellate and Supreme Court panels, well over 500 judges have had an opportunity to look at this issue.
I’ll continue to go with those facts.
“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
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
“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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
“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.”—March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
I've already proven that the info in Wong Kim Ark on which that decision was based is FALSE. And REPEATEDLY so, via SEVERAL factual sources.
"Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen."
The Ankeny decision relies on the FALSE INFO in Wong Kim Ark.
“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."
That ruling also relies on the FALSE INFO in Wong Kim Ark.
The entirety of Obama's purported "eligibility" court rulings is a house of cards based on the SERIOUSLY flawed Wong Kim Ark ruling. The "natural born subject" info Gray wrote into the Wong Kim Ark ruling is CLEARLY HISTORICALLY FALSE. Easily proven so.
Firstly, of course, John Quincy was born prior to the ratification so he was a citizen at the time of ratification and his birth circumstances would be irrelevant.
The 14 year residency requirement certainly suggests that some residency outside the U.S. would not bar a person from becoming President. I have maintained elsewhere that the circumstances of birth for a U.S. citizen born outside the country would be relevant, however if both parents are U.S. citizens, then I find myself believing that the divided loyalty issue is basically eliminated. This might be affected by either parent having dual citizenship or any other circumstance which would justify concern.
I think the "natural born citizen" requirement was to eliminate any reasonable concern about divided loyalty.
Even presumptions about paternity might enter into the discussion. Any illegitimate son of King George the III is ineligible, even if common law might grant paternity to the husband of the mother.
I am quite confident that the Founders did not consider eligibility to become President to be a right. I think they would be quite content to enforce a very strict interpretation. The inclusion of an exception for citizens at the time of ratification argues for this strictness. Otherwise they could simply have used citizenship of the U.S alone as the criteria. Such a standard was simply not sufficient to address their concerns.
Congratulations on proving yourself right to yourself. Now if you could only interest any trier of fact anywhere in America of the validity of your arguments, we’d have more to talk about. But until then, not so much.
Not one acknowledged expert in constitutional law from an originalist, textualist or strict constructionist legal philosophy has gone near the natural born citizenship issue.
Feel free to prove that the British National Archives and the U.K. Border Agency info that proves Gray inserted incorrect info on "natural born subjects" into the Wong Kim Ark ruling is false. I'm sure the Brits would laugh themselves silly at you trying to prove that over 300 years of their history didn't happen.
You could also try proving that the U.S. Naturalization Oath is fake.
Let's see you try. It'll be entertaining. [rolleyes]
There was a six Justice majority in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray was just one of the six.
Justice Joseph McKenna was brand new on the Court and recused himself.
A 6-2 majority and 115 years of being “stare decisis” is pretty well entrenched but perhaps someday, a different Supreme Court will look at Wong with fresh eyes.
Some of the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions have been overturning what had been precedent.
Justice Joseph McKenna was brand new on the Court and recused himself.
A 6-2 majority and 115 years of being “stare decisis” is pretty well entrenched but perhaps someday, a different Supreme Court will look at Wong with fresh eyes.
Some of the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions have been overturning what had been precedent.
How many justices or courts have ever investigated or considered the fact that the info on "natural born English subjects" that Gray wrote into the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion was historically inaccurate, over a span of over 300 years worth of English law?
How many justices or courts have investigated or considered the fact that contrary to what Gray wrote, jus soli birthright citizenship was NOT a consistently applied rule in the U.S. throughout our history?
Why the dogged determination to ignore actual facts?
It destroys confidence in the courts and the justice system. There IS no justice when the courts ignore facts and just make stuff up as they go along, or even worse, pass off falsehoods as truths, as Gray did in Wong Kim Ark, and then subsequent courts just idiotically go along with what someone once said regardless of whether it's true or not, facts be damned.
Why the hell should anyone abide by the law when our own courts continuously lie and get away with it?
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.