Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
**snip**
This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.
As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, it probably never will.
The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.” **snip**
want to go on record again objecting to the term “birther.” If the term were confined to conspiracy theorists, that would be one thing. But it has become a tool to shut down even legitimate debate.
The term was used as a pejorative as part of a deliberate Obama campaign strategy to shut down debate on his issues **snip**
5. The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant **snip**
6. “natural born Citizen” usage at the time of drafting the Constitution is uncertain **snip**
7. British common and statutory law doesn’t solve the problem **snip**
8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
so are they eligible to be President?
Resorting to immature name calling suggests my scholar is right and that you are wrong.
Deuteronomy 17 says you shall not take a king from anyone other than from your brethren. In other words, if you are the son of a father who is from Judah, and a mother who’s from Moab, you are not eligible to be king. Why? By the law of nature, when you are placed in a particular nation, it comes with a loyalty, a built-in loyalty to that nation. Look at how divided Barack Obama is. He’s divided. He has a very weak mother in terms of her loyalty to the nation and a strong father who is disloyal to the nation. No wonder he does what he does. He’s inclined to be that way. That’s why he doesn’t meet the natural born citizen requirement for president of the United States.
How could any court in America reject such sound LEGAL reasoning?
<>Cruz was a citizen at birth, so he is a “natural born citizen”.<>
Uhhhh — No
He didn’t become an American citizen until his mother filed the necessary papers with the U.S. embassy in Canada according to the law.
http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/start_here/4birth_abroad.htm
You should report the birth of a child abroad (outside the United States) to establish US citizenship. The birth of a child abroad (or overseas) to a U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to establish an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record is a Consular Report of Birth of a Citizen of the United States of America, or Form FS-240. This document, known as the Consular Report of Birth Abroad, is a basic United States citizenship document.
“so are they eligible to be President?”
Is that a question or are you arguing that they shouldn’t be?
Liberal HATE this country, yet, they can be president.
“Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act at the time of Cruz’s birth, Cruz had a right to U.S. Citizenship. “
Sorry, there, jack, he was a natural born citizen that needed to take no further action to be a US citizen.
Why are you still here? You have whined to me and to others to leave you alone - that you can’t make your points without getting the zot. Yet you keep making points and when we refute you - you whine “Leave me alone - I don’t wanna get zotted.”
How can I put this nIcely??? I’ll try this...
STFU and GTFO.
(Was that nice?)
“The fact that you would launch an attack against someone who is disarmed out of respect for the property owner says all that needs to be said about who you are and the integrity of your argument.
“
GenWhyMe, Aren’t you? Always an excuse, never any facts.
“Resorting to immature name calling suggests my scholar is right and that you are wrong.”
Proof you’re logical reasoning is idiocy at best, so is your selection of scholars and your understanding of the issue.
Next time I need to be right when I am wrong, I’ll just ask my opponent to call me a name so I can use your retarded logic: “You called me a name so I win. There. Pttttt!”
: )
Good Point
Yes, the children of some minors cannot inherit the mother’s citizenship due to legal incapacity.
At the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, there was no such thing as a wife having a citizenship different than her husband’s citizenship. At the moment of marriage the wife’s former citizenship is expatriated and her husband’s citizenship became her own citizenship. When the father naturalized to another citizenship, the citizenship of the wife and the minor children in the household automatically naturalized to the husband’s new citizenship as well.
Fast forward to the 20th Century. Adult women were granted the right of emancipation upon reaching majority age the same as men. As emancipated person, the adult women gained many legal capacities denied them when they required a father, husband, or other male for a legal guardian to conduct legal affairs. This came to include the right of suffrage, the right to vote and participate in the political community. This new legal capacity also began to change their ability to maintain a citizenship different than their husbands’ and minor children.
At the time Obama was born in 1961, Stanley Ann Dunham was still considered to be a minor in the eyes of international law and U.S. law. Consequently, she was witout the emancipation of a minor required to qualify for the legal rights of an adult. Her father was her legal guardian for purposes of legal affairs, until her adult and emancipated husband became her new legal guardian for conducting her legal affairs. Under these laws, the adult father’s citizenship is inheritable by the child, but the minor mother’s citizenship is no inheritable. This was reflected in the law where it required the mother to be of a required age a specific number of years before the birth to convey the mother’s citizenship to the child. So, yes, in certain circumstances a specific minor cannot giver her citizenship to her child, even in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
<>Sorry, there, jack, he was a natural born citizen that needed to take no further action to be a US citizen.<>
Uhhhh — No
He didn’t become an American citizen until his mother filed the necessary papers with the U.S. embassy in Canada according to the law.
http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/start_here/4birth_abroad.htm
You should report the birth of a child abroad (outside the United States) to establish US citizenship. The birth of a child abroad (or overseas) to a U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to establish an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record is a Consular Report of Birth of a Citizen of the United States of America, or Form FS-240. This document, known as the Consular Report of Birth Abroad, is a basic United States citizenship document.
No, he was an artificial born citizen, because it required an artificial, manmade, statutory law to make him a U.S. citizen, if and only if the U.S. Embassy or Consulate determined the residency requirements of the statutory law permitted the AUA.S. citizenship. A natural born citizen has no statute of law and no residency requirements because the person is by nature only a U.S. citizen and no other at birth. It is the literal difference between something which is inherently natural by its physical existence versus the manmade and there fore artificial existence of the thing or the status as a member of the society. Compare to the natural born woman versus the artificial and legal transgendered woman. Just as there is a natural woman versus an artificial womn, you also have the natural born citizen and the artificial born citizen.
“No, he was an artificial born citizen, because it required an artificial, manmade, statutory law to make him a U.S. citizen,”
That is such jacked up logic it isn’t funny. The same could be said of anyone at any time: “Yes, we know he was born here to two American parents but nothing says that makes him a citizen.”
In fact, throughout history laws were made that granted citizenship or took it away. You are simply buying into a line of illogical reasoning that says, “Of course he was born here so that makes him a citizen”, when in fact there could be laws that say otherwise. Such as, “No person born on US soil is a citizen until the age of 21 and having served two years military service.”
Actually, it was in common use:
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “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 citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” 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.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “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 February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman 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 June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner 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 March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “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.”
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
This professor is wrong on history. It was a common term, and used interchangeably with natural born subject.
No, you are misrepresenting what I said to knock down your own strawman argument. The terminology I used comes directly from the legal authorities. Look them up for yourself. See what “natural” means. See what “citizen” and “citizenship” mean in their legal definitions. Citizenship is the status of membership in a society, to use the abbreviated concept. Something in law is “natural” as opposed to “artificial” when no manmade enactments artificially create or modify the status, so the status exists due to the inherent and physical being of the person. A child is a natural member of a society when the natural parents are members of that same society and the birth occurs within the undivided jurisdiction of the same society, thereby precluding the existence of being a member of any other society to which the child would have the right of protection and the duty of allegiance and obediance.
In cases where the child has ever been a member of a foreign society with the right of protection from the foreign society and the duty of allegiance and obediance to the foreign society, the adopted citizenship is by the artificial intervention of a manmade law which negates any possibility of the membership being a natural membership or a natural born citizenship.
“He didn’t become an American citizen until his mother filed the necessary papers with the U.S. embassy in Canada according to the law.”
Um, no. He was a citizen at birth and she simply had to file that the birth happened, just like your mother had to do. The only difference was the process to do so.
By your illogical reasoning, you weren’t a citizen, either, until your birth certificate had been properly recorded. So, I guess you are not a natural born citizen as there was paperwork to do.
I have two siblings that are foreign born and both are natural born citizens and my parents also had additional paperwork to file. Big deal.
Your error is your mischaracterizing of the quoated statements. See Sir Edward Coke Calvin’s Case and the difference between datus and natus. Your quotations clearly recognize the differences in their usage of such terms a “deemed” “considered” and so forth to indicate the person is not what they are deemed but will be treated as if they were, meaning they are artificially made so by the manmade law instead of by nature.
No one has refuted me. I did post a long essay that cited numerous sources and facts, and used them to comprehensively argue the issue. It was deleted. That in no way constitutes a failure to present any facts, evidence or argument on my part. If anything, it shows something quite different.
I do keep asking that you stop challenging me to prove my case. I will not respond to such challenges, but only because the site owner does not want such arguments presented on his site, not because I cannot make effectively make them.
However, I will respond to false accusations about what I believe, what I have said, or what has happened during the course of this debate. I may also answer questions if I can do so without having to state my case on the NBC issue.
If you really wanted me to leave, you'd stop libeling me in a public forum.
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.