Posted on 10/20/2018 1:57:10 PM PDT by Jack Black
PDF We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” 1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at harvardlawreview.org ...
Wrong...Vattel was where the framers got the notion of natural born Citizen. Unbelievable. Where do you people come from?
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
My aren't we a pleasant one this morning? I quoted from the legislation you asked about. But by all means let us know what you think "subject to the jurisdiction of" means. This should be good for a laugh.
The question is why are you arguing for the children of foreign nationals to become citizens under the 14th amendment?
I'm not arguing anything. You asked and I answered, and assuming you were actually interested was my first mistake. The law is what the law is, regardless of whether we like it or not.
Actually you did: Reply 17
Have a nice day.
“Samoans are not American citizens. (Unlike say Puerto Ricans or Virgin Islanders or most other American possessions).”
Good point BUT..... Even in Puerto Rico it depends on WHEN you were born. All Puerto Ricans were NOT born U.S. Citizens.
Also just throwing all other possessions and territories into the grab bag of “most other American possessions” doesn’t answer the question.
Many factors determine citizenship “status”.
That’s why I always say to be 100% certain you are “natural born citizen” eligible is to be born in one of the 48 contiguous states to TWO citizen parents.
Otherwise, you must check the laws at the time of those other places to be sure.
As with Obama’s mother’s status, she was not old enough to convey citizenship to Barack because of state of Hawaii age/residency laws.
Similarly, Alaska being a more recent addition to the country, a candidate from there could have been born when it was still a territory. Different laws could apply.
Territories and possessions are all over the place. You can’t generalize about them at all.
Don’t fall for the HYPE. The founding fathers knew what they meant by “natural born citizen”.
Born IN the country, to TWO citizen parents. PERIOD!!!
So said the founders, so says the Supreme Court.
If you really want to be informed on this topic go to
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Read through the archives. More valid information at this site than ANYWHERE else.
Most people won’t, that’s why these falsehoods about the eligibility of Obama, McCain, and Cubanadians persist.
It will take ANOTHER Supreme Court ruling to settle this. That doesn’t mean that they will get it right. (Roe v Wade)
Actually, several were heard and rejected. At its root, he screwed up. NBC was never legally rooted in Vattel. In 1797, 10 years AFTER the Constitution, a translation of Vattel was made in Amercia which substituted NBC for “indigene” - a word that needed no translation since it is an English word as well meaning “indigenous person”. Vattel NEVER said a NBC needed two citizen parents. An indigene did, but the Constitution doesn’t require indigenous people for President.
Since Vattel was a popular and respected writer on international law, that false, post-Constitution translation entered legal thought - but it never gained traction. It was rejected as early as the 1840s, and Wong Kim Ark removed it from any serious legal consideration in the 1890s.
Folks can howl about “what I was taught” - but no competent lawyer would agree. Nor would any historian. The “two citizen parents” thing was never a part of the Constitution!
In any case, after 8 years of Obama, IT IS OVER. After 8 years of Kenyan father Obama as President, IT IS OVER.
And honestly, it was always stupid as a practical matter. Hillary meets the two citizen parent thing - is she loyal? What about Kerry? What about Diane Feinstein? There are uncounted America-hating leftist loons running around in America, all with two citizen parents. Elizabeth Warren is by anyone’s definition a NBC - and she hates America.
It is over. Find something useful to fight leftist on!
Not true. See my #103 above.
John Jay on July 27, 1787 clearly defines one of the first forms of citizenship and it was made part of the Constitution; Congress, of course, later created others.
However, one may believe NBC was defined at the time of the Convention, the definition used by the founders for drafting the contract between the states included two citizen parents.
Importantly, there was no dispute at the time. and such definition was taught by our education system for centuries thereafter. To now argue otherwise sounds like something that would be advanced by a globalist.
That was the point of my post. Don't attack me, address the comments from Paine.
-PJ
You and I have exchanged from opposite ends of this argument over the years. Without starting from square 1, let me quickly comment on your statement above (and I do so in light of what I believe is your positive military record).
The term NBC was specifically discussed and adopted at the Convention by those that had recently been personally involved in the very bloody and costly revolution that set us free from England.
To say that concerns of whether our president/CinC might be a foreigner or have some doubtful allegiance to our country was stupid, should give you pause for reflection.
If you hired them to give you legal advice on the drafting of a contract would you not expect such concerns to be protected?
“To say that concerns of whether our president/CinC might be a foreigner or have some doubtful allegiance to our country was stupid, should give you pause for reflection.”
But I didn’t say that, did I. The Constitution forbids foreigners or naturalized citizens from being President. Period. It sets no requirement for having two citizen parents, nor is there any reason why that would help.
Also, the term NBC was NOT discussed at the Constitutional convention - but it was adopted. It just doesn’t mean what many people believe because they are applying Vattel without realizing no translation of Vattel used NBC until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was adopted.
What do you think it means?
No.... It’s NOT over.
WRONG. The Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition from The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), a book of which Benjamin Franklin 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…” Franklin to Dumas, Dec. 9th, 1775.
§ 212. Citizens and natives. (1758)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
It certainly appears to a rational reader that you did - in the context of the Jay/Washington July 27 exchange the concept of having a foreign parent and also being a NBC was mutually exclusive.
Lets suppose Jay was mistaken about the term NBC; what is clear is the concern about foreign influence. If NBC had not meant 2 citizen parents at that time in America, should the pertinent concern about foreign influence also be dismissed? (Softball question, after Obama who had more than one foreign father, most would think not.)
We may be making headway here, you stipulate:
The Constitution forbids foreigners...from being President.
I suppose now we should now divine just how the parties would have defined "foreign" at that specific time (although I suspect the record is fairly clear on that).
The most certain reaction to an aspiring presidential candidate in the 1800's who happened to have a British Admiral as a father or the Queen of some potentially antagonistic nation as a mother should leave no doubt.
You get the last word, have a nice Sunday.
bm
It has been 8 years since many of us have thought about this issue. Many, including myself ultimately concluded the R party allowed O to skate because if disqualified it would have certainly allowed Hillary to gain the Oval Office. The R's political calculation at the Senate level to not convict BJ Clinton supports this view.
You cite specific 1758 language that NBC includes two citizen parents. The language certainly supports my argument that Jay, Washington and the ratifiers knew exactly the object desired with the term.
I don't immediately recognize the language and it isn't clear whether it is Franklin's or that it comes from the link at the bottom of your post. Perhaps I need more coffee. Can you help? to me however, what is the source of the language.
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.