On this “Natural Born Citizen” Issue, Part I: From Alexander Hamilton to Lynch v. Clarke

Red State ^ | May 21, 2012 | Jake Walke

[Idaho_Cowboy]

A long but interesting read on the history of what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

There goes a red herring! QUICK! EVERYBODY CHASE IT!!!

[SubMareener]

Had Cruz been born in 1921 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1922, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.

Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.

The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in its entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman SCOTUS decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings. The framers were patriarchs who believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship of the father.

The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.

Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.

Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and its people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical sociopathic usurper demagogue Obama.

[Shady]

What about Barry Sotero? Hmmmmmm?

[sunrise_sunset]

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

From James Madison. It can’t get any more clear.

[humblegunner]

What about Barry Sotero?

Is he running for some office?

[Lurkinanloomin]

Precedent Obama has rendered that clause moot.
Under the current definition of simply being born a citizen, if even only on one’s mother’s side, makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible. (his mother was an American)

I went to school in the 1960’s and was taught that natural born citizen was a subset of citizen and required only for the office of President. Must be born here to citizen parents. Reading the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution confirms this. They wanted no divided allegiance. If you could be anything other than a U.S. citizen, you can’t be a natural born citizen. No foreign births, no foreign parents.

Many people wanted the definition changed for various reasons.

[DiogenesLamp]

Anybody who cites "Lynche v Clarke" is an idiot, and is not to be taken seriously.

A state court case of New York has zero impact on what was the FEDERAL meaning of "Natural born citizen." The reasoning in Lynch is also specious. It basically says that "Because New York doesn't have a law saying otherwise, we are gonna apply the English Common law as default. "

Well hold on to your butt, cause the New York State Legislature shortly thereafter passed such a law, and it deliberately excluded "Transient Aliens." It was a very public rebuke of "Lynch v Clarke" by the legislature of New York.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

What about Barry Sotero?
Is he running for some office?

---

In another year he's going to be running for the unemployment office with followed by a bunch of people with hot buckets of tar and bags of feathers.

[Sacajaweau]

Reality says it was written to specifically cover George Washington....who ran unopposed in both the 1788 and 1792 election and the possible VPs.

[Shady]

Agreed. So sad.

[DiogenesLamp]

From James Madison. It can't get any more clear.

Yes it can. While President, the Madison Administration deliberately denied the citizenship of James McClure who was born in Charleston South Carolina, on the grounds that his Father had not been naturalized prior to the birth of James McClure. The issue is summed up in this newspaper account of the period.

So which Madison do we believe? The Congressman trying to persuade his colleagues to support the claim of his political ally? Or President Madison who refused to order his Ambassador to intercede on the behalf of James McClure.

I would think the office of the Presidency speaks with more authority, and I further think his actions spoke louder than his words two decades earlier.

[Fledermaus]

LOOK, SQUIRREL!

[Lurkinanloomin]

My reading of the first Madison quote from the other FReeper was that both parentage and place were required, supporting the originalist view.

[Lurkinanloomin]

we may conclude that Obama, Rubio, Haley, Cruz, and Jindal are all indeed “natural born citizens” by American legal understanding
*************

of the type that views the Constitution as a “living” document.
Redefining Natural Born Citizen is so much easier than amending the Constitution.

[CodeToad]

Who gives a rats ass?? If they can have Obama, we can have Cruz!

I didn’t see you pinheads say a peep about the loss of the Bill of Rights one by one, but you sure want to make this conspiracy theory claim against Cruz.

You have obviously never read the law, yet you think your claims to the Constitution hold water when you don’t say squat about the loss of actual rights.

Phony patriotism, that’s all this is.

[DiogenesLamp]

My reading of the first Madison quote from the other FReeper was that both parentage and place were required, supporting the originalist view.

He does make the argument that Smith's ancestors were among the first colonists. He plays heavy into Smith's family heritage.

But everybody seizes on that one statement as definitive.

[RummyChick]

That’s a little dicey. The woman had no citizenship of her own. She took the husband’s citizenship. So it was automatic.

So basically it was really only one parent made two by the law

Of course, then what about out of wedlock births, etc.

I am sure someone will correct me if I remember this wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course, then what about out of wedlock births, etc.

The law of the time, and I think it is still the law today, is that in the case of out of wedlock births, the Mother's citizenship applies. There is even a Latin legal term for it, but i've forgotten what it is.

[Aria]

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Extremely interesting and pertinent article: http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm