Trey Gowdy Twists Natural Born Citizen Qualification to Support Marco Rubio

Freedom Outpost ^ | 12/19/2015 | Tim Brown

[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

[thackney]

While I don't fully understand what you might mean,

I view the term "pure American" as another attempt to break down Americans into smaller groups. Claiming to be different than those "other Americans". I won't claim that.

"United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."

Patrick Henry's Final Speech, March 4, 1799
http://www.patrickhenrycenter.com/Quotes.aspx

[GBA]

view the term "pure American" as another attempt to break down Americans into smaller groups. Claiming to be different than those "other Americans". I won't claim that.

I view it as a legal reality based upon the circumstances of your birth.

Therefore, I see the "pure American" that you're reacting to as a legal description, standard and reality honoring history, the Law and its meaning and intent.

Your mom's water could have broken while waiting for the naturalization procedure to start and she could have given birth to you moments after your parents took the oath of citizenship and you would be a "Pure" American.

What else would you be???

Based upon the citizenship you inherited at your birth, it was all American and nothing else.

That's the LEGAL baptism of the melting pot. I washes your past citizenship away and gives you a fresh American identity (citizenship) and a fresh, clean start.

I honor that, am not ashamed of it and do not see it as divisive. Divisive? How could it be? It is what legally makes the Unum out of E pluribus.

Interesting to me that we seem to be using the same words but our understanding and emotional reactions to them are very different.

Thank you for helping me with my confusion!

[thackney]

I’m an American. I’m happy with that distinction and do not want a qualifier.

Cheers!

[2pets]

I hope so.

The reason why those born a dual (or more) citizen are precluded from eligibility for POTUS via the natural born citizen clause is because the Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the foreign country has the valid legal right to assert their country's laws upon the born dual (or more) citizen individual at any time regardless of where they are, worldwide.

Prime example: the U.S. citizens impressed into service for the British Royal Navy in the early 19th century. Many if not most of those men were born in the U.S. to a parent (father, given the historical era) who had been a British subject at birth and were therefore dual citizens at birth. They were subject to British law even if they had never left the U.S. The UK has the legal international right to enforce their own laws on their own subjects/citizens, worldwide.

The US State Dept to this day warns about this very same problem afflicting any and all who were born dual citizens or later become dual citizens at some point in their life:

"Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.

...The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

What happens when a foreign country similarly impresses a born dual citizen POTUS into service for them, as they most certainly would have the legal right to do under international law?

That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid with the 'natural born citizen' requirement. They wanted POTUS to have no split, dual, or otherwise compromised/competing allegiance from birth to prevent that possibility.

Pretty simple, really. And extremely reasonable to require a POTUS and the Commander in Chief of our military to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. from birth, with no competing/conflicting foreign claims on his/her allegiance or service.

To be clear: the problem is conflicting/competing allegiance at birth via dual (or more) citizenship, and a foreign country's valid legal right according to international law to enforce its laws upon its own citizens/subjects, worldwide.

Renouncing a citizenship with which one is born is iffy. In times of war or conflict, that renunciation may not be recognized. That's what happened in the early 19th century to U.S. citizen men born in the U.S. to parents (fathers, given that historical era) who had been born British subjects before the U.S. gained independence. Even though those U.S.-born men had never stepped foot in England and had been U.S. citizens all their lives, the UK had the legal right under international law to impress them into service in the British Royal Navy because they were the progeny of those who had been born British subjects, and therefore were also British subjects themselves under British law.

That aside, it's shocking that so many are on board with ripping the Constitution to shreds on more than just this issue (e.g., at the very least, the First, Second, and Sixth Amendments are also currently under attack: publicly speaking critically of Muslims, gun controls/bans, No Fly list compiled without due process, etc.).

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yes we have been over this territory ad nauseum in 2012. Dredging it back up now is simply well, boring.

[JayGalt]

That is a strange way of parsing it. Since the country has been founded these 3 categories have existed. The only reason for the natural born designation was to attempt protect the US from a President/Vice President with foreign allegiance. No better no worse no purer no more American. Just American citizen parents. Pretty hard to see it as elitist or divisive.

[JayGalt]

Its so seductive however to think that if people understood the necessities and how ignoring the concepts had lead to BO and our downfall they might choose more wisely and elect representative that would clarify the standards so our Country would not face this situation again & again. The issue needs traction.

[GBA]

Okay. Merry Christmas!

[thackney]

Since the country has been founded these 3 categories have existed.

- - - - -

We don’t agree.

Cheers.

[2pets]

"Yes we have been over this territory ad nauseum in 2012. Dredging it back up now is simply well, boring."

Yes, I'm sure it has been discussed many times. But still to this day... look at how many people even here at FreeRepublic have no knowledge of any of what I posted whatsoever.

/shrug

[Yosemitest]

They will see that TED CRUZ STOOD WITH Jeff Sessions and Steve King,
while Marco Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer !

TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
with five of the years after the age of 14.

... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.

Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent.
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),
so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Source

In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
48 years after leaving Cuba.
Why did he take so long to do it?
"I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Lets just talk about the race its frustrating enough. :-)

[Georgia Girl 2]

This issue has been trying to gain traction for 8 years. The Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution. They refuse to take up the matter. Will not do it. Admit they don’t want to do it. So until they decide otherwise its all moot.

The Congress wants nothing to do with it either so the issue is DOA.

[entropy12]

Trump is by far the strongest on how to re-negotiate the Trillion dollar foreign trade deficits EVERY YEAR. That is the prime reason better wage jobs have gone away for the vast middle class.

[entropy12]

Cruz has been pushing the cheap labor express. Listen to his speeches here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHlGlNwsQb0

[entropy12]

I have noticed many Freepers turn faster than Jimmy John’s sandwich delivery. All it takes is one action, and then all past actions are ignored.