Posted on 05/25/2014 6:04:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Partisanship plays a major role in how Americans decide who should be eligible for the Presidency, and the concept of what being “natural born” means also plays a role. The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, states that only “natural born” citizens are eligible to serve (it also sets an age limit and grandfathered in anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, saying someone is eligible to serve depends on who you are.
Nearly everyone agrees that someone born in the United States with two citizen parents is a natural born American, and nearly everyone agrees that someone born outside the United States to NON-citizen parents is not. About three in four – Republicans, Independents and Democrats – believe having only one citizen parent and being born in the United States qualifies you as natural born.
If you are born outside the United States, most Americans say you need to have two American-citizen parents. That would make John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, natural born, as his U.S. citizen U.S. military parents were stationed in the Panama Canal Zone when he was born. But more than half say that if you are born outside the United States, and only one parent is a citizen, you are not a natural born American,
That means more than half of Republicans (53%) would disqualify Texas Senator Ted Cruz from the Presidency on principle. Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen, while his father was not. But fewer than one in four Republicans think Cruz was born outside the country; only 10% know his mother was a citizen and his father was not.
Of course, some of those Republicans may be answering the question by making a statement about President Barack Obama, and not Ted Cruz. Nearly half of Republicans say they believe the President was born outside the United States, not in Hawaii, and most of those say his mother was a citizen and his father not.
Consequently, most Republicans say Cruz is legally eligible to be President, while President Obama is not.
Tea Party Republicans are even more sure Cruz is eligible (68% think that), but most of them don’t know he was born outside the United States. Tea Party Republican say the President was born outside the United States, and less than a third think he is legally eligible to serve as President.
There are large party differences for one option. Is someone a natural born American who was born in the United States, but to two immigrant parents? Democrats say they are, while Republicans disagree. Parties have nominated children of immigrants for the Presidency (Michael Dukakis in 1988), but no child of two immigrants has been elected President since Andrew Jackson in 1828 (and he was born in the Carolinas before the adoption of the Constitution, and therefore grandfathered in to presidential eligibility).
Florida Senator Marco Rubio was born in the United States, but his parents, immigrants from Cuba, were not yet citizens when he was born. Half of Republicans say that would disqualify someone from being “natural born,” as the Constitution requires to run for President.
My younger son was born in Spain, of two American parents. His original birth certificate is Spanish. He also has a US birth certificate issued by the State Department.
I think that he is natural born, because of his parentage.
Nope just a sensible court ruling will do.
Or we could just ask for an Executive Order, they seem much easier than amendments and are just as powerful, apparently.
If your parents didn't have diplomatic immunity, they and you are within the jurisdiction.
If you have diplomatic immunity, you don't have to pay your parking tickets.
If you have to pay your parking tickets, then you are "subject to the jurisdiction", and if you are pregnant, you can "drop anchor", so long as the 14th remains unrepealed.
I think that he is natural born, because of his parentage.
He's natural born because he is entitled to citizenship due to the circumstances of his birth.
Unlike, say Kissinger, Schwarzenegger, or Granholm, each of whom was born foreign (German, Austrian, Canadian, respectively) and each of whom needed to be naturalized in order to acquire US citizenship. Thus, those three are not eligible.
Your son is eligible, as are Cruz, Jindal, Haley, Rubio, McCain, and Obama.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States. According to the SCOTUS, when determining what the Constitution means, you must give every word purpose, in your understanding of the term natural born Citizen, what purpose do you assign the word ‘natural’? The writers could have simply said “born Citizen”, or “Citizen from birth”. Why the extra word ‘natural’?
Here is the current law of the land that applies to the birth circumstance of your son:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(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;”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
According to the SCOTUS, when determining what the Constitution means, you must give every word purpose, in your understanding of the term natural born Citizen, what purpose do you assign the word "natural?" The writers could have simply said "born Citizen," or "Citizen from birth." Why the extra word "natural?"You are not likely to get an honest or a logical answer to this key question.
The usual weaselly answer (if any answer is given at all) is to claim that the phrase "natural born" is somehow equivalent to a single word because it is a very special phrase taken from English law. This is bogus on its face because 1) it actually is, in fact, two separate words, and 2) the founders considered using the simpler, single word "born," but rejected it after much deliberation (about the importance of exclusive allegiance) in favor of the phrase "natural born," so an honest person cannot claim that the two mean the same thing.
To me it is clear that the founders considered that requiring that our presidents just be born citizens would not be enough of a check on foreign intrigue. They wanted the office restricted to Americans who were exclusively 100 percent red blooded Americans. The lengthier phrase was to ensure a natural exclusive allegiance to America with no possibility of anything else.
“The founders considered using the simpler, single word “born,” but rejected it after much deliberation (about the importance of exclusive allegiance) in favor of the phrase “natural born,” so an honest person cannot claim that the two mean the same thing.”
Actually, there was no debate held on that section. As to what it means, the following decision discusses it at great length:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
*Most countries do not make citizenship claims (that are recognized as legitimate by the USA) on the children of foreign travelers who happen to give birth on their soil while visiting on a traveler's visa. A thought experiment will test this: If such a young man (born to USA citizens on foreign soil, but raised in the USA) visits the land of his birth and is impressed against his will into their military, will the USA let this pass or will our government do everything within its power (including the use of force) to get him back?
Into which category would your son fall?
In your own words, what is the additional restriction of meaning that the word "natural" adds to the phrase natural born Citizen over that of plain "born citizen?"
If you claim that the word adds no additional meaning, then why did the founders bother to add it to a document for which each section, phrase and sometimes individual word was deliberated and debated over for months?
The Founders were not a monolithic whole. There were disagreements among the Founders on practically every substantive constitutional issue and many issues were resolved only by compromise. After all, “politics is the art of compromise” and many Founders were politicians. For example The Founders decided on direct popular election of the House of Representatives only and Senators were indirectly elected by state legislatures (The Connecticut Compromise of 1787). In 1913, the Founders’ plan for the structure of the federal government was abolished by the 17th Amendment and since then Senators have been popularly elected.
The Founders made it difficult, but not impossible to change their original thinking on any constitutional issue via the amendment process.
The Supreme Court said in 1875 that: “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”—Minor v. Happersett
Since 1868 and the adoption of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, only two classes of citizens have existed, born citizens and naturalized citizens. There is no category “natural born citizen” that is separate and distinct from “Citizen of the United States at Birth.” They are one and the same.
The category “Born Citizens” does make provision for persons born “over the sea” (as it says in the Naturalization Act of 1790) to be Citizens of the United States at Birth. That continues today.
Spin, spin, spin.
More interesting interpretation, but no driving resolution.
“In your own words, what is the additional restriction of meaning that the word “natural” adds to the phrase natural born Citizen over that of plain “born citizen?”
I answer none, because it was a well known legal phase in frequent use. The only change was “citizen” for “subject”:
“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
“If you claim that the word adds no additional meaning, then why did the founders bother to add it to a document for which each section, phrase and sometimes individual word was deliberated and debated over for months?”
Actually, it was added without debate. You might want to read the history of how the Constitution was written, and its various drafts.
I want to know who the idiots are who think someone born abroad of two non-citizen parents could be natural born citizens.
I think I am living in Wonderland. Where's the bottle labeled, “Drink Me”?
“You stated that the word ‘natural’ gave no further meaning, so according to your argument, ‘natural born subjects’, automatically became ‘natural born Citizens’. Do I have that correct?”
Yes.
“Words should be interpreted to give them some effect.”
Yes, and so should legal phrases that were commonly known and used.
For example,
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.”
On February 6, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature ratified the US Constitution.
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.”
Please notice that one of the ratifying legislatures used the terms interchangeably. The terms are not unique to the US Constitution.
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.