Posted on 03/18/2023 10:56:28 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Mar. 18, 2023) — The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen”. However, the term is not defined in the Constitution. Neither has a law or court ruling been made more exactly delineating the constraints of the term. The purpose of this post is not to re-hash the arguments about what “natural born citizen” means, but to outline a process that generates a legal standard for how it is enforced. The States are key to this process.
This proposal is to have one or more states enforce via legislation the implementation of the requirement in their state, according to their understanding of the requirement. If a candidate or political party sues the state, the Supreme Court will review the law and decide whether the details of the law are constitutional, according to the original intent of the framers. By this means, we can produce a general standard for the requirement that all states could adopt. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/03/18/states-should-enforce-natural-born-citizen-requirement/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
WKA mentioned Citizen but not Natural Born Citizen. WKA said the parents had to be here with legal residency for Wong to be a Citizen, not natural born Citizen as mentioned in Article 2 Section 1. Nikki Haley’s parents had not established legal permanent residency in the states when she was born. Same with Kamala Harris and Jindal. They are not natural born Citizens.
Yes, this must be decided at some point and hopefully with a court following the Constitution, not public opinion. A person born with dual loyalties, born of non-citizen parents, cannot be a natural born citizen. While tradition says follow the father, that law changed in the 60s and commonsense says to also follow the citizenship of the mother (besides we don’t always know who the father is), so long as the kid does not have dual citizenship. Yes, Obama disqualified, Rafael Edward Cruz (aka Lyn’ Ted), Little Marco, and Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley are also disqualified. So is Jose or Mohammad born at the border of illegal aliens.
I like the process you describe. It’s probably the only path to a legal definition, short of a congressional law.
What if, however, an intermediary court overturns the state law, the case is appealed to the USSC, and the high court refuses to hear it?
You either haven’t read Wong Kim Ark, or you are being intentionally deceptive. Whichever, by what act of logic, are you saying that a case, Happersett, which specifically stated that it was NOT dealing with children born here of alien parents - did just the opposite??? I find that sort of illogic fascinating. Why do you do stuff like that? What sort of twisted stuff is going on inside you??? Does it cause you any discomfort at all?
My veneration of the Framers implies they didn’t add this clause intending it to mean nothing. Even though some today prefer it to mean nothing rather than pushing or deciphering other meanings. I much doubt it was intended to bar ithe presidency to those born via C-Section, although that would comport with one meaning of “natural born.” The clause reportedly engendered little discussion at the time, suggesting that its meaning was generally understood and accepted by the Framers. Which would fit with an interpretation derived from the Common Law of the time. To clarify its meaning in advance rather than to wait to rule someone already ‘elected’ was thusly ineligible via still controversial fine print would be prudent. Yet the courts remain reluctant to address the question. Some clever legal way to encourage SCOTUS to rule, ideally without any current candidacy in question, and without affecting the mostly wise policy of SCOTUS not ruling unless necessary.
This was resolved with the Senate Resolution over McCain’s candidacy. The Senate defined an NBC as ‘having 2 US citizen parents at time of birth, regardless of location’ (2007?)
Yes and the secretaries of each state have that obligation already to determine if candidates submitted by the parties meet the qualifications. Pelosi was one of the signators when Obama ran; I think the he of the DNC was the other.
When Eldridge Clever submitted for president, he was asked for a birth certificate and found to be too young and not put on the ballot.
The secretary of state in Cal refused to ask Obama for his BC despite the numerous claims going around, including court cases, he was not born in the uS. Also his father was british citizen making him ineligible.
The founders were familiar with the French writer Vattel who in the mid 1700s defined NBC as two citizen parents and born on native soil. Historically countries have followed that or required the father to be a citizen.
There is a letter available on line between Washington and Jay about the need for the commander in chief to be trusted.
It is hard to believe the founders wanted a son of a british citizen to be in charge of the US military. When Obama and some of the others were born they had citizenship options. In his case, Kenyan/British or US. Having the option to be the citizen of another country by definition means you are not natural born to one particular country.
and Harris
How can a person be a NBC if their parents citizenship gives them an option to be a citizen of another country?
Yes, Vattel’s Principles of Natural Law was heavily used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution and write the founding documents. Benjamin Franklin sent a thank you letter to Dumas in Europe thanking him for sending additional copies: https://www.scribd.com/document/63130788/Ben-Franklin-thanks-Charles-Dumas-for-Copies-of-Vattel-s-Law-of-Nations-or-Principles-of-Natural-Law
Read section 212 in Vattel’s legal treatise: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
Also see various SCOTUS cases cited and explained at Article II Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Also this White Paper: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
do you have a reference for immigrants being grandfathered in after 1789.
Side bar: Here is Madison responding to a petition from a candidate claiming his opponent was not a citizen for7 years in 1789.
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.
thanx
Can you show me where I said immigrants were grandfathered in after 1789?
-PJ
What is odd here, the natural born distinction applies only to the President/VP....not to House members, Senators, Judges or state Governors.”
In the letter online from Jay to Washington they were concerned about commander in chief I believe that is the distinction between the requirement for President/VP and congress.
BULLSHIRT!
ENGLISH LAW? BLACKSTONE?
We fought a war to escape from English tyrannical laws.
Citizenship requirements for our new presidency will not be set by BRITISH LAW.
Sir, you are full of %$#@!
https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/immigration-united-states-timeline
A few major notes:
1) immigration was a state issued until 1875 when the supreme court ruled it was a federal issue.
2) many years passed before major federal legislation was passin 1924
3) Trump’s very good position was that the legislature needed to have a discussion and pass some laws that he could follow instead of the bureaucracy hodgepodge.
As we saw with Obama, NO ONE requires proof of age, residency, or citizenship. Just a memo from Nancy Pelosi that Obama was a “natural born citizen”. How the hell could she know?
Well, he looks old enough. He’s from Chicago, right? I saw many DIFFERENT COPIES of his birth certificate on the Internet.
“I like the process you describe. It’s probably the only path to a legal definition, short of a congressional law.”
Sorry Charlie. It would take a constitutional amendment to change the definition or a SCOTUS ruling on the existing definition.
Congress has no authority to change the constitution.
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.