Posted on 04/27/2012 8:24:47 AM PDT by vadum
According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nation’s chief executive.
How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.
For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.
Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot. Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!
Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.
Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.
Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.
John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
It is a given that the undefined terms in the Constitution are defined in the English Common Law that was the legal heritage of this nation. Literally thousands of Supreme Court cases over the last 200+ years will back that up.
Minor v. Happersett says that natural born citizens are “children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens”. It does not explicitly state that the parents had to have been its citizens at the time of the birth of the child, and therefore an argument can be made that a person born in the US to people who subsequently because US citizens became a natural born citizen when his parents became US citizens. I have not seen this analysis before, and perhaps it is flawed, but I believe it is not inconsistent with the language of the holding in Minor.
Rubio’s father did become a US citizen following Marco’s birth; to my knowledge Barack Hussein Obama I never did become a US citizen.
Son #1 is NBC because you are, and son #2 is, too, because of your citizenship and where he was born.
The supposed requirement that the parents both be citizens is a fiction the birthers invented after the 2008 election. In their frustration at having been utterly unable to prove Obama was born abroad, they (Leo Donofrio) cooked up the Vattel nonsense, in hopes the legal route would succeed where the factual didn't.
As Zak points out, Lincoln and the original GOP didn't buy it:
Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
And there is no way the US Supreme Court is ever going to buy it, either. They will go with the common sense idea of what NBC is. During the 2008 election, Obama's parentage was not only known, but had been a celebrated aspect of his biography ever since his 2004 keynote address at the Donk convention. And, except for the loons claiming he was born in Mombasa to a woman supposedly too young to pass on citizenship, no one questioned his eligibility.
Not only that, but after a minor flub in the noon-time oath taking, the Chief Justice repeated the ceremony the following evening in the Map Room, just to make sure (LOL):
 Chief Justice John Roberts, just making sure |
Stare decisis et non quieta movere.
(For those of you in Rio Linda, Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative Republican appointed by GWB.)
The pirate Roberts was placed where he is to stall the hearing of the issue at SCOTUS. Byt the time little barry bastard commie is into his second term, the court will be leaning so far left that the Constitution and the founders’ intentions will be a buried issue. Fiat ruling will be the standard, just as fiat executive orders are little bastard’s standards now.
Interesting to know (and no, Obama’s father didn’t become a citizen, he moved back to Kenya shortly after O’s birth and per Dreams of My Father, he only visited O in the US once and it was just a quick meeting).
A silver lining...
Any Republican that supports the DREAM act does not belong any where near the White House. If Romney had any cajones, he would get Gov Brewer to be his running mate.
They could try to “deem” Rubio all they want and it still wouldn’t make it so. And Resolution 511 is a non-binding resolution, which holds the same non-effect as Neil Abercrombie’s 50th Hawaiian anniversary congressional resolution that declared Obama was born in Hawaii (LoL) that is written between the lines of exulting Diamond Head and Don Ho. ...LoL.
Uh.....no!
Your analysis was very well-written and thoughtful. Thank you.
just amend the constitution and create a third form of citizen which requires at either the mother or father be a citizen of the usa.
Apply it to all future births and the debate is done.
When did George Romney become a US citizen?
I fear that you are correct...though I hope and pray that the People never forget the reason why the 2nd Amendment was proposed and ratified (by a bunch of former revolutionaries, FYI).
“That’s what ‘natural’ means...”
Natural in the case of Natural Born Citizen means that one’s citizenship flows naturally from the citizenship of your parents.......none of the people mentioned in the article meet that definition. Sorry.
My point about the 14th is that it redefined who was a US citizen. Therefore a Court decision is needed to determine whether it made any difference in who was NBC.
But that is perhaps irrelevant since the original definition of NBC has not been defined.
I do find it significant that in the Wong Kim Ark decision the Court quote Blackstone extensively and referenced common law as the basic principles applying to US citizenship. If I remember correctly, one of the dissenting opinions stated that he was dissenting partially because otherwise “coolies” would be eligible to become president, at least implying that he would be NBC.
It is relevant that not only was neither of Wong Kim Ark’s parents citizens, as natives of China they were at the time not capable of being naturalized.
BTW, I agree none of this is dispositive. Which is why we need a Court decision.
You forgot to write the People’s Republic of Boulder so definitely not a NBC ;-)
I agree with your analysis up to the point at which you assert that the parents have to have been citizens at the time of birth of the person in question. As I read the Constitution and the Minor case, one can argue that if the person was born in the US and the parents became US citizens prior to the moment when the citizenship of the child has to be determined, then the child is a natural born citizen: In other words, the status of a child can change from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” after he is born, when his parents become US citizens.
As I wrote elsewhere, I just thought of this analysis and have not seen it elsewhere, and perhaps there is other case law (or something in Vattell or elsewhere) that discredits it, but I don’t find it inconsistent with either the constitution or the Minor case to say that one can become a natural born citizen if (a) he is born in the US and (b) his parents later became US citizens.
Yes, everyone knew that Obama’s father was never a US citizen in 2008 - but that substantive issue was never able to be brought up in federal court, as all of the courts said that anyone who brought up the issue lacked standing to do so. The simple fact is that we’ve NEVER had any real safeguard to make sure that a person running for President or Congress was actually eligible.
That bit about Lincoln backing Fremont is what is known as a “red herring.” Lincoln was a politician, not a Supreme Court Justice ruling on an active case or controversy. His (and his Party’s) narrow self-interest in 1856 do not - CANNOT - override the Constitution.
Undefined terms in any law are defined by the prevailing law of the jurisdiction at the time the law is passed. The prevailing law at the time the Constitution was passed/ratified was the English Common Law, which was the basis of our entire legal system. Literally thousands of Supreme Court cases have confirmed that over the course of the last 200+ years.
The “Common sense” meaning of any words now is not necessarily the same as the common sense meaning of those same words at the time a law (or Constitution) became the law of the land. When in doubt, our judicial system ALWAYS looks to the ORIGINAL meaning of words or phrases.
In short, I think that you are incorrect...which doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t agree with using the “common sense” meaning of “natural born citizen” if we were drafting an amendment to the Constitution. However, we are NOT doing so, and are left to interpret words that are 225 years old AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD AT THAT TIME.
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.