On Constitutional Eligibility

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

The Constitution says that to be eligible to be President of the United States a person must, among other things, be a natural-born citizen. Elsewhere it says that Congress is given the power to establish rules of naturalization. It is absurd to think that the passage of time and/or Congress can change the definition of natural-born, as that would effectively give the Congress (or the passage of time) the power to amend the Constitution outside the provisions of Article V of the Constitution.

So to establish what WAS meant by natural-born in 1787 when the Constitution was drafted, we need some sort of History of the English Language. And that is what the Oxford English Dictionary is. It is much more than a dictionary. It is a history of meanings and usages of words over time.

So first we should look up natural-born.

This and the two other definitions presented here come from the Second Edition of the OED first published in 1989 and then republished with corrections in 1991.

I think the most important part of this entry is the suggestion to compare this definition with that of native-born. This suggests to me that the two phrases have slightly different meanings and might be confused with one another. So here is what the OED says about native-born. (Note that by 1876, natural-born did morph into considering place of birth determinative, but that back in 1833 this was definitely not the case.)

The difference between natural-born and native-born is that parents do not matter for the latter, but they do for the former.

There is one other definition that is important to this discussion and it is the one that defines that power of naturalization that was given to Congress. Here it is.

So that power given to Congress is to declare that those who would not otherwise be citizens, i.e. aliens, have the same standing as if they were native-born, NOT natural-born.

Now there is some ambiguity here. The definition of natural-born is given of plural children of plural parents. It is not entirely unreasonable to read this as a child of at least one citizen should be considered natural-born, though some who read it that way might also insist that the father is the one to confer this status. My own opinion is that both parents must have been citizens at the time of ones birth and that the place of birth is irrelevant regarding natural-born status. This should have eliminated Barack Obama, and because I believe he is ineligible, I really hope the Republicans do not nominate Ted Cruz, his political positions notwithstanding.

ML/NJ

[TigersEye]

"Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp.with subject."

That line is the sum total of the definition of 'natural born' in that dictionary entry.

[so_real]

" ... and then by amendment and thus are able to pass on natural born constitutional status on their own, just as the father once did"

And there you have it ... the heart of the legal question!

Did the Fourteenth Amendment with purpose weaken the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" to a status which could be conferred by "either" parent having pure allegiance and jurisdiction? Or, is this status only conferred by "both" parents having pure allegiance and jurisdiction?

As this was not specifically spoken to in the amendement, I would presume no weakening of the requirement occurred. Remember that women could not vote until the Nineteenth Amendment; the doctrine of "partus sequitur patrem" was very much the standard with regard to citizens.

Furthermore, the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, describing his understanding of the language of the Constitution as ... "that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" with my emphasis added.

I welcome the counter-argument by those who disagree. But even in disagreement, you see, there is a genuine dispute in material fact. It must be adjudicated. And it is long overdue for the Supreme Court to quit cowering in their corner and do their job with regard to the matter.

[so_real]

Bob434: The Congress can alter citizenship through regular legislation ... changing the definition of natural born citizen requires amendment. Do you really want the Congress to possess the authority to alter the Constitutional definition of "infringe", or "treaty", or "vote" through regular legislation? No. The Framers did not either. The language of the Constitution is sacrosanct. Original intent stands until amended.

[ml/nj]

The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

That's nice. But if you think the 14th Amendment had anything to do with Presidential eligibility, you are not playing with a full deck; and are probably one of those folks who think the 14th Amendment IS The Constitution.

Regarding naturalization, I wonder if you just decided to comment without reading what I posted.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

That line is the sum total of the definition of 'natural born' in that dictionary entry.

I recommend that you stick to one of those paperback dictionaries. The OED is obviously beyond the scope of your brain.

ML/NJ

[Cold Heat]

There are other facts that mitigate.

Ted’s father was a refugee from Cuba, this in and of it’s self is not important. What is important is that his mother had natural born status. What other status could she have transferred?

Secondly, the entire purpose of the natural born language was security. The newly minted country was still at risk from the British and French.

That issue is no longer front and center nor does it keep people awake at night as it did then.

Since Vattel, rights and status have changed to include women, and yes, even single women or men. One can also look back and see that the interpretation of natural born was made in 1790. That interpretation does not conflict with the assertion of natural born status for Cruz through his mother.

Since he received that status there was no need to grant citizenship by statute. That was never done.

No question that there has been various opinions and statute changes since 1790, and this has muddled the case and made it possible to challenge, but not necessarily possible to win.

[TigersEye]

Childish insults don’t constitute actual arguments.

[Steven Tyler]

...Elsewhere it says that Congress is given the power to establish rules of naturalization....

That’s right!
In cases of ambiguity, Congress writes laws and creates a rule book.

Within this thread, and many other threads, all sorts of folks have different reasons why Cruz is eligible, or NOT eligible. This simple fact opens the door to an infinite number of lawsuits challenging Cruz’s eligibility!

The shortest true description of US Natural Born Citizen is : a US Citizen father, a US Citizen mother, and their child born on US soil.
The added benefit of this description? I believe NO Lawyer could find a way to challenge the eligibility of a NBC POTUS candidate.

[ml/nj]

If you see one line and do not understand the purpose of those that follow, I can see no other suggestion for you that makes sense.

ML/NJ

[so_real]

So we have a genuine dispute of the material facts ...

[TigersEye]

If you had any substantive reply you would have given it instead of responding like a 10 year old.

[Cold Heat]

"that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" with my emphasis added.

Three things here to look at, and yes that is one of the interpretations.

1. In 1790 the interpretation under jurisdiction also included men and women who are US citizens traveling abroad who bore a child abroad..

2.John Jay had 2 foreign born children.

3. If you want to cling to the two parent issue, then Donald trump does not qualify because his mother was a naturalized immigrant from Scotland.

[ml/nj]

You see, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out that all of those usage examples were intended to convey meaning. I thought it was obvious;, but that's just I, I guess.

ML/NJ

[Cold Heat]

of the material facts

Not of the facts, but of the interpretation of what those facts mean to Ted Cruz.

[TigersEye]

If you were capable of explaining them, or capable of adult conversation, you would have pointed to them and expounded on your point. Instead you did what you are capable of; a 10 year old’s insult.

[Cold Heat]

The issue is not naturalized citizenship. That is a statutory issue..

The issue is how natural born status is determined.

Non-statutory citizenship, not requiring naturalization is what natural born means..IMO

[ml/nj]

If you want to cling to the two parent issue, then Donald trump does not qualify because his mother was a naturalized immigrant from Scotland.

The problem with suggesting that a natural born citizen could only be begotten of two natural born citizen parents is that then there would never be any natural born citizens.

ML/NJ

[so_real]

Well, you can't talk about 1790 without also talking about 1795, and that just muddies the water. John Jay's children did not run for POTUS, so they are immaterial. And ... Trump's status can certainly be clarified along with Cruz's. It's probably a good idea if only to prevent Jeb and the GOPE from having both front runners declared ineligible and stealing the election ...

[so_real]

I should have been more clear : "material fact"

[Cold Heat]

Yes, the water was first muddied in 1795.

In spite of the turbulence, when you make a interpretation one of the most important things to consider is the original intent. That’s why I brought up Jay.

Nobody is going to steal the election, but Cruz could be damaged politically if people actually believe the accusations. (false perception of reality) (and so could anyone in similar circumstances)

The primary thing to consider, is that no lawsuit will ever prevail. There are a number of reasons for it, but the two primary reasons are legal standing, and the fact that this is a political argument.

There could be 100 or a thousand suits. it does not matter as none of them would have standing or legitimacy.