Vanity: The Constitutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"

Vanity Essay | 31 January 2012 | sourcery

[gg188]

FYI Cruzers will deny any argument you make or assemble, they will accept any support or affirmation from any source (Glenn Beck, Lindsay Graham, etc.), then they will call YOU the most vile and vicious names. In other words, because THEY want Cruz to be eligible, in their mind it MAKES him eligible. They have no fealty to the constitution nor desire to see it adhered to if it stands between them and their goal of the status quo and the Washington Political Class/Cartel. They NEVER meet detailed labors of scholarship with anything but name calling and out-of-hand denial without any attempt to understand the text. They do not care. I don't know why. It's very weird. They are being raped by the Washington Political Class just like we all are, yet like victims of Stockholm Syndrome or batter wives, they are IN LOVE with the very one who symbolizes the abuse they suffer constantly at the hands of the Republican Cocktail Party and Corrupt Crooks and LIARS.

No amount of being lied to, no amount of subterfuge or dirty tricks or lies will reach them through their cognitive dissonance.

This, below, best describes the situation, though why Freepers, presumably only a few members of the Government Class/Educrats/Media/Crony capitalists/Lobbyists and Donors. They REFUSE to see and recognize their rapists, plunderers and looters of their own possessions.

The establishment-Republicans are so hungry for the status-quo (the same group who have been damaging this country) that they'll risk a complete political meltdown rather than to have an outsider like Trump become their nominee.

Like I said in the beginning, even in this outlier of a scenario, the real tragedy in the Republican Party is that so many are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in attacking Donald Trump so viciously. But, to question such actions, would be to falsely assume they care about the party or its cause. They don't. They care about maintaining the comfortable position of power they have attained, and they expect you to comply or they'll "burn down the house." "The house" is both the party and the cause, in favor of their power. If you corner and threaten a vicious dog, he is likely to bite.

[Yosemitest]

It's not that I don't believe you SAID IT.
It's that ALMOST NO ONE SUPPORT YOUR POSITION about TED CRUZ !
There's a few 'hired guns' working to support Trump's LIES, but VERY FEW.
LIKE I SAID:

As to your comment:
"Then through a brokered convention the delegates will put in Rubio, Jeb, Kasich or even Mitt.
You Cruz supporters need to understand Cruz will never be President.
Unfortunately he'll be disqualified.
YOU just can NOT get it past your OWN MIS-CONCEIVED THEORY.
But the LAW and the CONSTITUTION ARE CLEAR !
TED CRUZ, as many before me have PROVEN, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !

The 'Brokered Convention' will be a DEATH NAIL in the coffin of the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS",

and they KNOW IT !

[Yosemitest]

WHY DON'T YOU JUST ASK ME to ACCEPT YOUR THEORIES,

and STOP POSTING FACTS that PROVE YOU WRONG ? ! ? < /sarc>

[Yosemitest]

Vera Coking walks past Donald Trump, obscured against wall at left, in a courtroom hallway
at Atlantic County Superior Court on Feb. 13, 1997.
... Trump wanted Coking's house - - not to live in, but as a place to park limousines for his casino next door.

"It is a classic case of a schoolyard bully growing up," said Clint Bolick, who co-founded the legal institute that defended Coking in a 1990s lawsuit with Trump ... "He's a thug."

Coking and her husband bought the white, three-story house at 127 Columbia Pl. in 1961, long before the area was transformed by mega-casinos.
She raised her children there.
For a time, she operated it as a boarding house.

... Coking, who is now more than 90 years old and was not available to be interviewed, was having none of it.
This was her "dream house," said Dana Berliner ...

Coking held firm, even as the 22-story Trump Plaza soared outside her windows with its ever-flashing lights.
The house was deteriorating, but Coking's will wasn't.
Demolition crews had set fire to her roof, broken windows and smashed up much of the third floor, according to her attorneys.
Still, she didn't move.

... Trump, Coking and the casino authority pounded away at one another in court.
Then, one day in the summer of 1998, the Superior Court of New Jersey put an end to the conflict.
The court ruled that the casino authority and Trump were wrong.
The government couldn't take Coking's house and let Trump have it.

And you support that P.O.S. Trump ?
HOW VILE CAN YOU GET ! ? !

Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump WILL STAB YOU IN THE BACK !

Someone submitted 'Your Handy, Dandy Trump Vs. Cruz Comparison Chart !'

Your Handy, Dandy Trump Vs. Cruz Comparison Chart!

Submitted by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on January 22, 2016

Presented without comment for your consideration.

Simply click each policy or issue to read the back-story.

Policy or Issue	Trump	Cruz
In 2013, supported Amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S.	Yes	No
In 2000, supported an Assault Weapons Ban	Yes	No
In 2015, supported “touchback” Amnesty for every illegal alien in the U.S.	Yes	No
In 2000, supported Partial-Birth Abortion	Yes	No
In 2015, lied to gun media about his past support for an Assault Weapons Ban	Yes	No
Supports seizure of private property by the government using Eminent Domain (Kelo)	Yes	No
Supports Mitch McConnell’s habitual lies to constituents and fellow GOP Senators	Yes	No
Currently courting and being courted by GOP establishment	Yes	No
Currently supports crony capitalism: billions in taxpayer ethanol subsidies	Yes	No
In 2000, supported Extended Waiting Periods to Acquire Firearms	Yes	No
Amount of debt owed to bankers	Many billions	$1 million
Amount donated to the bogus Clinton “Foundation”	$100,000	0
Endorsed by GOPe icon Bob Dole, who thought Ronald Reagan was “too fringe”	Yes	No
Number of bankruptcies declared by firms he led	4	0
Amount of debt defaulted on	$4.7 billion	$0.00
Number of times married	3	1
Number of “birther” conspiracy theories circulated	2	0
Praised/endorsed Communist for Mayor of New York	Yes	No
Spends virtually every waking moment on social media	Yes	No
Appears to shift his position on important issues literally overnight	?	No
A guy so stable, sober and poised that you want his finger on the button	?	Yep

[Democratic-Republican]

FYI Cruzers will deny any argument you make or assemble, they will accept any support or affirmation from any source ...

I see what you mean. This one here, Yosemitest, is a marvel to behold. He is actually the first one at FreeRepublic I have dealt with first hand, I mean on substantive Constitutional issues ( I try to avoid dogmatic religious threads ). He is completely impervious to all objective facts and I'm starting to wonder if Levin and Rush are this thick as well. Apparently to them ( I say apparently because I cannot get one single straight answer from this artful dodger ) citizen is now actually equal to natural born citizen, and even James Madison's own explanation cannot penetrate this new post-American religion.

This is how America will end, by being sold out to anti-American globalist internationalists who inexplicably believe they are conservatives. Such people ( and including Rush and Levin ) do not even realize that taking "natural born" out of natural born citizen is a direct attack on our sovereignty, not to mention our entire friggin history. Did you know that Winston Churchill actually qualified as NBC!

This particular zealot's style ( copy/paste wall-of-text ) reminds me exactly of some of those I've fought with at DUmmyland, DailyKaos and HuffPost over the Second Amendment. It is stunning and illustrative at the same time. Over there in enemy territory they are religious socialists and the Second Amendment is simply invalid because they believe it to be so. No words from any Founder makes a lick of difference. Somehow Cruz has attracted a similarly religious collection of zealots that will stoop so low that the actual words of our Founders are meaningless to them.

I've always like Ted Cruz but the anti-Constitutional stink from many of his supporters will rub off and onto him. It cannot be avoided. ~sigh~ I'm seriously beginning to root for his destruction in the primaries now, because when your lemmings decide to piss on my neck and tell me its raining then I can't help but be profoundly affected by it.

gg188, thanks for the comment and tipoff. It took a while but I'm beginning to understand.

[Yosemitest]

I noticed YOU REFUSE to address the FACTS and the PROOF, backed up through the LINKS provided. Rather than debate with FACTS, you retort through PROJECTION.
That ALONE says a lot about the THEORIES you offer, and WHY they should NOT BE believed!

YOU demonstrate that YOU ARE "completely impervious to all objective facts".
YOU DENY ALL the LINKED writers, MANY WITH SUPREME COURT EXPERIENCE, who PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that YOU ARE WRONG about TED CRUZ's qualifications as a Presidential Candidate!
YOU dodge EVERY CONSTITUTION LINK GIVEN.
YOU dodge every FOUNDING FATHER who REBUKES your THEORY !
And your attitude towards Rush, and Mark Levin, and your refusal to even address Thomas Sowell, CLEARLY REVEALS YOUR POLITICS.
You have revealed YOURSELF as just exactly WHO YOU REALLY ARE !


Here's something to consider about liberals, and conservatives.

The liberal's problem is psychological projection.

Liberals do this all the time.
Here's a definition.
Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts.
In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

• "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept.
  It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
  
  
• "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people.
  So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."
  
  
• "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
  
  
• "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself.
  Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest.
  The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."
  
  
• "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others.
  An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
  
  
• "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification.
  We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

And here's a problem with honest people.

(General) Projection

Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly – according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be undesirable or unconscious.
Projection is probably inherent in social animals and the single most important psychological mechanism.
The following are given as examples:

1. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until informed that B is colour-blind;
   
   
2. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;
   
   
3. ‘It takes one to know one’;
   
   
4. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals his fear and alerts others;
   
   
5. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way.

Liberals constantly project their own vile values onto conservatives, intentionally or unintentionally,
and they need to called on it, shamed on it, and laughed at to scorn, when they do it.

Ponder THAT for a long period of time !

[Enlightened1]

I agree but that’s why you should not waste your vote on Cruz.

The DNC and GOPe are openly talking about it.

The only reason they have not moved is to divide the conservative votes.

So we really don’t have a choice. Trump is not perfect but who is? He is all we really have. Rubio, Jeb, Kasich and Mitt will just be more of what we had over the last 8 years. I don’t think our Republic can survive that.

I’m 100% for Trump now.

The more the media attacks Trump the more I like him.

[Yosemitest]

It not a "waste" !
To vote for Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump, IS to SUPPORT a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT !
Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" IS NOT a Conservative, NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT !

Trump is Thad Cochran regenerated !
Trump will say ANYTHING to win.
This is just like Mississippi, with Chris McDaniel and Thad Cochran, appealing to DemocRATS to cheat Republicans out of their Selected Primary Candidate !

We had that "DemocRAT In Disguise" DEFEATED IN THE PRIMARY, until HE CHEATED !





Chris McDaniel refuses to concede: "We're going to investigate" ( 8:40 )
Published on Jun 25, 2014



DUPED Trumpsters NEED to WAKE UP !

Vera Coking walks past Donald Trump, obscured against wall at left, in a courtroom hallway
at Atlantic County Superior Court on Feb. 13, 1997.
... Trump wanted Coking's house - - not to live in, but as a place to park limousines for his casino next door.

"It is a classic case of a schoolyard bully growing up," said Clint Bolick, who co-founded the legal institute that defended Coking in a 1990s lawsuit with Trump ... "He's a thug."

Coking and her husband bought the white, three-story house at 127 Columbia Pl. in 1961, long before the area was transformed by mega-casinos.
She raised her children there.
For a time, she operated it as a boarding house.

... Coking, who is now more than 90 years old and was not available to be interviewed, was having none of it.
This was her "dream house," said Dana Berliner ...

Coking held firm, even as the 22-story Trump Plaza soared outside her windows with its ever-flashing lights.
The house was deteriorating, but Coking's will wasn't.
Demolition crews had set fire to her roof, broken windows and smashed up much of the third floor, according to her attorneys.
Still, she didn't move.

... Trump, Coking and the casino authority pounded away at one another in court.
Then, one day in the summer of 1998, the Superior Court of New Jersey put an end to the conflict.
The court ruled that the casino authority and Trump were wrong.
The government couldn't take Coking's house and let Trump have it.

Thiose who support that P.O.S. Trump need to do their research on WHERE Trump stands ON THE ISSUES .

Just click on the dots for details from the candidate, on the subject.
Source:

Presidential Candidates Comparison

Policy or Issue
Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

Border Security and Immigration is NOT one of Trump's strong suites.
One day he says one thing, and the next day, he's on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the issue !

Donald Trump tells immigrant advocates "You've convinced me"
...Trump told the trio "You've convinced me."
The meeting comes several weeks after Trump - one of the nation's most prominent conservative voices - delivered a key note address on immigration reform in Iowa
and warned that that the Senate's current immigration bill "could be a death wish" for Republicans, who "need to 'do the right thing' ."



Trump: U.S. should accept some Syrian refugees
Donald Trump thinks the United States should accept some refugees from Syria due to the "unbelievable humanitarian problem." ...
Trump ... said Tuesday evening that though the migrants could pose a security risk -- floating the idea that there may be individuals with ties to Islamic militants --
he supported allowing them into America. ...



Donald J. Trump - Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Congress must protect our borders first.
Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped.
11:08 AM - 29 Aug 2013
1,055 RETWEETS 1,064 LIKES



Message to the GOP: Trump supports amnesty
... On the Kelly File Thursday, Trump's son Eric expressed frustration that the media overlooks this:
The point isn't just deporting them, it's deporting them and letting them back in legally.
He's been so clear about that and I know the liberal media wants to misconstrue it,
but its deporting them and letting them back legally.
Eric Trump is right.
His father has been crystal clear that he wants all the illegals to return and live in America.
Listen closely to what Trump is actually proposing.
In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash earlier this year, Trump explained his plan this way:
I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal ...
A lot of these people are helping us ... and sometimes it's jobs a citizen of the United States doesn't want to do.
I want to move 'em out, and we're going to move 'em back in and let them be legal.



Donald Trump's companies sought visas to import at least 1,100 workers
... Trump owns companies that have sought to import at least 1,100 foreign workers on temporary visas since 2000,
according to U.S. Department of Labor data reviewed by Reuters.
Most of the applications were approved, the data show.
Nine companies majority-owned by Trump have sought to bring in foreign waitresses, cooks, vineyard workers and other laborers on temporary work-visa programs administered by the Labor Department.
The candidate's foreign talent hunt included applications for an assistant golf-course superintendent, an assistant hotel manager and a banquet manager.
Two of his companies, Trump Model Management and Trump Management Group LLC, have sought visas for nearly 250 foreign fashion models, the records show.
Trump's presidential campaign and a lawyer for the businessman declined to comment.
The Mar-a-Lago Club could not be reached for comment.

[Enlightened1]

It’s a waste because Cruz will be disqualified by a shopped federal judge guarantee.

It’s not a theory it’s what the DNC along with GOPe are promising.

You are wasting your vote.

[Yosemitest]

You need to stop DREAMING.
EVEN Trump KNOWES about "nonjusticiable political question."
He's playing the "Low Information Voters" for lemmings,
Even YOU know better.
But you continue to sell your THEORY !

But for those catching this thread late, here it is explained once again.

As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds
that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
- - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

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.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to 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,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  
• A final, historical condition:
  a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued)

[Enlightened1]

I’m living in reality. You are clearly the one that is dreaming.

[GBA]

This post is one of the best I've read on Free Republic and I am grateful to you for your thinking out loud.

You have followed the maze successfully and wound up right back where you started from, true, but you are better for your hike through the valley of the dead.

I agree with you that the "copy/paste wall-of-text" is that internet persona's best and only defense. Giving credit where due, it is an effective technique for breaking up the flow of thought in a thread and getting readers to move on instead of reading more.

Such personas, whether live or internet, tend to use emotion instead of logic for justification. Your words are not for them, but are for the rest who read and follow along unnoticed.

No matter how well you present the material or digitally perfect your logic, it won't be heard and truth will NOT be recognized once emotion and its justifications get in the way.

Shifting perspective, I find both the psychology involved and the times the most fascinating aspects of what is being done to US from within, both within the nation, but more importantly within our heads and hearts.

I understand history a bit better now while observing how so many are made "useful" when placed in the "right" situation and give the appropriate justifications.

As it is now, I am fascinated with trying to figure out if our tearing down the old standards and this fundamental transformation by redefinition just evolved naturally or was it made to?

The recurring theme for these times:

"it had been said that in these times, many would lose the sense of the Divine and would live in their own way, and would be unable to tell good from evil;"

"It's on." Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

[Yosemitest]

You have no FACTS to back you up!>
YOU ARE DREAMING !

[Enlightened1]

You are delusional and live in fanstay land if you really believe the rubbish you type.

Have see the thousands at almost all of Trump’s Rallies???

Cruz is lucky if he gets 200 people at a rally.

Trump has a bigger lead than South Carolina than he did in New Hampshire.

Trump leads among Independent votes. Trump leads in even cross over from Democrats.

Trump wins in almost every poll too.

Trump WILL WIN in South Carolina and Nevada.

[Democratic-Republican]

This post is one of the best I've read on Free Republic and I am grateful to you for your thinking out loud.

You have followed the maze successfully and wound up right back where you started from, true, but you are better for your hike through the valley of the dead.

Thanks my FRiend. That is very much appreciated.

You don't know how accurate you were regarding coming full circle with respect to elections of the Office of the President. I have completed a perfect 180° in the past 16 years ( the first 180° occurring during the many years prior ).

In 2000, the year culminating in the infamous Bush v Gore, it was my turn to proclaim 'the best ever opportunity to get a conservative elected', after all, a damaged Clinton and Reno were about to leave town and an unprecedented class of new vulgarians had been swept into Congress ( note the immediate similarity right off the bat ). Cruzers and their spokesmouth Levin are today precisely where I was at that time as evidenced by his speaking those exact same words on the radio, and often.

But my candidate Alan Keyes was an even finer example of a Conservative Constitutionalist and also of a Christian Crusader. No-one yet has come close to his absolute total recall of our most important documents such as the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, not to mention the Old and New testaments. I highly doubt that any of our Founders committed so many of those materials to memory and it led me to describe Alan Keyes as our reincarnated James Madison.

So I can partially relate to what the Cruzers are feeling today because of what I was always told back then. Keyes is unelectable, he is a Bible thumper who can't shut up about abortion and homos, he would nuke Arabs to protect Israel, everything short of Keyes desiring to force Americans to go to Church on Sunday. And I was livid and apoplectic at my friends. It took a long time for that experience to wear off and to shake the quasi-religious zeal I was blinded by. Eventually I got around to examining the returns from that one, the earlier ones, and subsequent elections to zoom out and get a wider viewer of our systematic electoral destruction. But I digress.

I say that I can partially relate to the Cruzers because obviously there was no question of his eligibility unlike the infamous Cubanadian ( and boy, how ironic is it that Keyes would be the person found later at the center of candidate Dumbo's controversy by first becoming the designated Republican loser for that Illinois Senate seat, and later being one of the advocates for his disqualification for lack of natural born citizenship! The Lord truly works in mysterious ways ). However, unlike the Cruz zealots, if Keyes was ineligible, I can say without fear of hypocrisy that I would be the first one to jump ship. And the reason is simple, no man is more important than the Constitution.

Something else needs to be said here. Back in 2000 and ever since, all of the Cruz loving talking heads like Rush and Levin and Hannity and Beck were nowhere to be found with respect to Alan Keyes. They gave him some basic lip service here and there, but he was mostly shut out of the media, and of course discarded by (R)epublicrat GOPers like a man with a communicable disease. Rush was all in for Bush43, and I know exactly why. It was his friend Mary Matalan ( obvious object of Rush's creepy unrequited love ) who pulled him in. His treatment of Keyes was pretty much the same way that Jon Stewart condescends to all conservatives. His treatment from the others was of similar but varying patronization.

The key point here is that our purist conservative talking heads never called him the 'next coming of Reagan' nor the 'best chance ever' nor 'what we need in the oval office' or any of those other things they now spout. Keyes never played the race card and neither did I, although I guarantee that if Cruz were black they would be doing it now. No, in Alan Keyes case it was jealousy of his breadth of knowledge who ran rings around all comers, and it was one more thing ...

... Rush and Levin knew he could not get past the electorate. Thus, the irony today is simply beyond description.

As for the uber-Zealots, some of them may get their own epiphany eventually, the most hardcore ones though probably will not. Let's just hope that no tragic act of fate places Cruz on the ticket. Because his monumental loss that would rival or exceed McCain or Romney is too high a price for us all to pay just to prove the Cruzbots wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

And it is why you can have William Rawle say,

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

Like Dr. Ramsay, William Rawle was also in a good position to know the minds of the Framers.

Well, he would meet with them in the tavern in the evening when they would take a break from the convention if I recall properly, but he wasn't a delegate to the constitutional convention.

But whatever they told him, we now know he was deliberately misleading people on this point because we found that book from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judges stating flat out that Citizenship is derived from Vattel and Natural Law, not English common law.

The Pennsylvania supreme court also rejected his citizenship argument UNANIMOUSLY, in the case of Negress Flora v Joseph Grainsberry. (If I spelled it right.)

So yeah, Rawle might have known the truth, but he chose not to convey it to others in his book.

And do you know why? I think I figured it out. See if you can figure out why Rawle deliberately misled people on this specific point.