Posted on 12/21/2015 6:04:59 AM PST by HomerBohn
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. -Article II, Section 1 of the united States Constitution
Before I begin and before you get angry at me for pointing out what I'm about to point out, I want to ask you to hold that thought and ask yourself why you are not more angry at these representatives for their ignorance and willful ignoring of the law! I have been suspicious of Rep. Trey Gowdy for some time now. Though he often says a lot of good things, the reality is that he has been on several congressional committees, including chairing the Benghazi committee and has brought absolutely no resolve to any of those things. However, today, a video was released challenging Gowdy on the Natural Born Citizenship qualifications of presidential candidate Marco Rubio (and we could also apply the same standard to Ted Cruz). Gowdy's answer was simply treasonous.
(Watch Video At Link)
Evan Mulch, who is a constituent of Gowdy's, confronted the congressman concerning and first asked if he had read the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that several congressmen are attempting to have released to the public. Gowdy admitted that he had not read them.
However, it was the follow-up question that generated the ignorance and heat. Mulch asked Gowdy, "When Marco Rubio said that his parents were born in another country, that doesn't make him a natural born citizen, according to the Constitution. What would you say to that?"
"That issue has already been litigated," said Gowdy.
Gowdy then went on to totally distort the idea of what was put to him and asked if John McCain was ineligible, something that has not been a part of being a natural born citizen. In case you miss the dodge there, Rubio's parents were not citizens when he was born in the States. Of course, Rubio is an American citizen, but fails to meet the qualifications that even the founders recognized had to be present to be a natural born citizen.
When Gowdy was asked, "So, we don't need a natural born citizen to be president?"
"It depends on what you mean by that?" he responded.
It depends on what you mean? My goodness, the ignorance is glaring and I will demonstrate just how much shortly, but Gowdy continued to demonstrate his ignorance of the natural born citizen issue.
When Mulch said that we know what the founders meant by it, Gowdy retorted, "No you don't!"
But Mr. Gowdy, we most certainly do know! In fact, we have something called the 1790 Naturalization Act, which clearly defines who a natural born citizen is. And no, it is not just a person born on American soil as the Constitution distinguishes between natural born and "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." If all that was required was to be a "citizen," then why the distinction? It was because of what I'm about to show you.
As Publius Huldah has pointed out, the framers were quite familiar with Vattel's Law of Nations. As such, they understood what it meant to be "natural born," though Vattel used the term subject, not citizen. While many have tried to blow off Congress' use of the Law of Nations, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Charles Dumas on December 9, 1775 to thank him for sending three copies of the book and specifically wrote, "… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…" (2nd para) [boldface added]
So, Congress most definitely was aware of the volume, had high and just esteem for Vattel and continually had it in their hands. Keep in mind that this was all before the Constitution was written in 1787.
In fact, Publius Huldah points out that in the 1916 edition of the Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction which stated that the fathers of independence, "were in accord with the ideas of Vattel," that the found in Vattel "all their maxims of political liberty" and,
"From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel's influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities."
While our founders were originally subjects of Britain, once they won the war for independence, they became citizens, and Vattel was the one who offered that understanding they came to with regard to natural born citizen. Publius Huldah has previously pointed out what the gist of what Vattel penned in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are "citizens".
So, the founders knew what it meant and we know they knew what it meant. Gowdy is just out to lunch here or is being dishonest. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no excuse for a man in his position to not know this.
Furthermore, the 1790 Naturalization Act, which was written within two years of the Constitution, so there is no doubt that these men had the same definition of those who penned the Constitution, reads:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Notice that even in this Act, there is a distinction between "citizens," those who are "naturalized" and "natural born citizens." Notice they also understood that men like John McCain (though he is a traitor to his country) would be a natural born citizen, even if he were born outside US soil in Panama. Why? Because his parents were both citizens! There is no doubt that we can know exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote "natural born citizen."
Finally, you'll notice Trey Gowdy said, "You're either going to follow the law of the land or you're not."
Exactly right, Mr. Gowdy, but it seems you are so ignorant of what the Constitution means by Natural Born Citizen that you are unable to follow the law, or you are simply willfully not following it, but propping up nothing but anchor babies from all over. After all, if all that is required to be president is for one to be a citizen, every anchor baby ever born should fit Gowdy's sentiments, right?
Rubio's parents were born in Cuba and were not naturalized till after he was born in the States, making him a citizen, but not a natural born citizen (remember the language distinguishing between those two in the Constitution. Cruz's father was born in Cuba and his mother was a US citizen. Remember, that one must be born of parents (plural) who are citizens, but more specifically the father must be a citizen. Cruz held dual citizenship in Canada and the united States until he wanted to throw his hat in the ring for a presidential run.
But notice the other problem here. We are told we are a nation of immigrants. No, we are not. I'm not. My family decades ago may have been, but my parents were citizens, their parents were citizens and I'm a citizen. Furthermore we are natural born citizens. Also, one woman turns and ignorantly claims, "You realize we're all not natural born citizens." Talk about why we are in the place we are at!
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6
Indeed, America is being destroyed due to the lack of knowledge of the people. As a final thought, keep in mind that the Bible even teaches that a foreigner should not rule over the people, emphasizing the natural born status.
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Deuteronomy 17:15
“America is a nation of immigrants. The difference is previously people came here to be American and for a better life.”
I apologize. I thought you could reason.
You might want to read them next time. From the one you linked to: "Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent. Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth."
Your link says the same thing I am saying.
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.
I did read them and I read many others when Obama was running. The interest in this topic over the last 7 years has improved and refined the analysis. The first analysis left open the possibility or allowed the reading into the discussion of a separate category of birth/birth to citizen parents but the next few I looked at for completeness did not and they were both closely reasoned.
As I said it really is no longer possible to separate the idea of born in America from the idea of born in America from citizen parent(s).
This is not change. It was this way from the beginning.
Congress declared that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” 1 Stat. 104 (1790).
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227
No kidding. . . .
Problem is I read so many of them in the years following Obama’s election that I thought I knew the topic and saw what I wanted to see.
There has been more analysis in the ensuing time on Jus sanguinis vs jus soli. Previously the analyses came down on the side of the first, now the second is being recognized as the decider in America. Whether right or wrong that appears to be the American tradition, and convincing documentation and analysis relevant to that point of view has been teased out of the fabric of historical jurisprudence and correspondence.
No you misunderstand my original point. The child of American citizen(s) born anywhere is a natural born American citizen at birth. On that point we are in agreement.
My point was that natural born necessitated having allegiance to the country at birth. Children born to citizens of other countries are citizens of their fathers/parents country at birth no matter where they are born. It has been reasoned that while they are American citizens at birth since they are born here because there is the possibility of divided loyalties they are not natural born citizens. They are after all of dual citizenship at birth and are being raised by parent presumably loyal to another country, since the parents are not American citizens. This distinction does not appear to have held up over the years but it was that point that I was originally making.
I haven't read anything that supports that claim.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.Seems like personal agendas get in the way of defining natural born citizenship just like they do defining marriage nowadays or defining global warming or climate change or anything else you can think of.
Perhaps our current troubles with absolutes and rigid definitions demonstrates one of the reasons why John Adams wrote to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts on October 11, 1798 that:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."We are not that people at the moment, but we could be again.
We went from the 1890 "Gay 90s" to the fundamentally redefined very gay 1990s.
Sooner or later the pendulum will swing back again.
Failure to agree with your revisionist history is not a failure to reason.
Sections 1 and 2 of that act defined what was required to become a naturalized citizen of the US.
Section 3 defines who that process does not apply, they are already citizens by the conditions of their birth.
Just google on Jus sanguinis
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/jus-sanguinis-is-the-rule-for-the-united-49015/
Then by that logic Ted Cruz cannot be a natural born citizen, regardless of his mother's nationality, because the circumstances of his birth gave him dual citizenship.
I understand the concept. I don't see it in our Constitution.
“Failure to agree with your revisionist history”
You must some kind of ignorant person. Rush Limbaugh talked at length about the history of immigration a few weeks ago, using stats and historical facts. His conclusion: the “we are a nation of immigrants” is liberal revisionism of our history. Or, you can get off your ass and do your own search.
And, by the way, your repeated assertion,”we are a nation of immigrants” is not proof that we are a nation of immigrants.
Our nation started off as a nation in 1776 when a group of British colonies coalesced as one nation. They descended from British pioneers that had migrated to North American over a hundred years prior. Had a highly developed civilization. Historians say that there was not a single capital crime committed in the colony of Massachusetts from 1650 to 1750.
blah blah blah
English, Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Greek, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese all immigrated here in large numbers from 1620 through the 1930s.
Everyone here with the exception of Native Americans are the descendants of immigrants.
That would make sense. While all are citizens, not all are natural born citizens.
The natural born form is better understood as an exclusive, pure kind of thing rather than such a loose standard or there would be no point of making any citizenship distinction or reason to mention "natural born citizen" at all.
Moreover, both the 1790 and the 1795 definitions highlight the citizenship status of the father at time of the child's birth and a foreign father cancels the American at birth citizenship thing altogether.
So much for anchor baby citizenship, too.
Had a highly developed civilization. Historians say that there was not a single capital crime committed in the colony of Massachusetts from 1650 to 1750.
- - - - - - - -
Good times back then:
Penalty for Keeping Christmas, 1659:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/docs/christmas1659.pdf
For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accounts as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the country.
No. I am saying there was and is only two types of citizens:
Naturalized through a legal process
Natural born
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.