Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
Here's the deal...
Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Natural law existed prior to the establishment of the Constitution.
Or are you going to argue that natural law didn't exist under the Articles of Confederation which was prior to the Constitution?
The rest of your post is even worthy of response.
This is my take on Bret's CRAP:
He's simply saying: to all conservatives out there, right of center media aren't cowards and we don't want to be FORCED by our bosses, the WH, the 50% thuggish population, etc. to call you kooks...it's an election year and this should put to bed, either you like it or not!
BTW, we don't want to discuss it either, so save US the trouble!
Signed, Bret Bayer, FNC...representing the right of center talking heads and, wink wink, the RNC!
“They already have in Minor.”
Not really.
I just cut and pasted what I found, but did you notice the date?
“8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008)”
Correction:
put to bed -———> put it to bed................
Signed, Bret Baier, ...........
“How is it untrue? Does the law apply to the children of aliens or doesn’t it?”
Yes. Since the children of aliens can be citizens, and the particular section of the law cited talks about how, obviously it applies to citizens as well as aliens. Therefore, your contention that it applies only to aliens is false.
I don’t know why we’re still talking about this.
Sorry Bret but to quote Professor Akhil Reed Amar, “each word of the Constitution is to be given meaning; no words are to be ignored as mere surplusage.” Therefore it is insufficient to equate “natural born citizen” with “citizen” lest you consider “natural born” to be surplus. Note well that the founders made such a distinction in Article I versus Article II, adding the words “natural born” in Article II, Section 1 listing the qualifications for the Office of President.
I sure did. (2008)
Wrong. Rubio was born a citizen; therefore, he's natural born. That's the common understanding of the term, and that's all Bret is asserting.
There are only two types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. Natural born are those who are citizens because of the circumstances of their birth. Naturalized are all the rest, such as Kissinger, Schwarzenegger, Granholm, et al. They were born something else (German, Austrian, Canadian) and became citizens later.
At this point, there is no way the Court is going to contrive a new definition of Natural Born in order to keep Obama off the ballot. Obama is going to have to be defeated in the election. Period.
BTW, Bret did make one little mistake: He failed to note that the age requirement of Section 1401 only applied to married women. That would exclude Stanley Ann, since her 'marriage' was bigamous and thus invalid. Therefore, little Barry bastard would be eligible even if born in Mombasa, as long as Stanley Ann was his mother.
I’d like to pose a couple of questions.
We should all be able to agree that someone born of two citizen parents in the United States is a natural born Citizen of the US.
Do we agree on this?
Since there are questions about anyone else (otherwise there wouldn’t be these long discussion threads) if a candidate did not meet this criteria, should it not be the candidate’s responsibility to prove conclusively that he/she is a natural born citizen also, as opposed to us having to prove they’re not?
We know what a natural born Citizen is. We just don’t seem to know what it’s not (at least some folks).
And to pose my other standard question, do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military?
If there’s a “misunderstanding” of a definition, it’s our misunderstanding, not the Founders’ failure to “define” a term in the Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what they were writing. But, they were counting on an educated populace to enforce the Constitution. They didn’t realize how much we could be dumbed down.
I don’t know why we’re still talking about this.
I'm still talking about it because you're still getting it wrong!
This phantom third category of born but not eligible to be president citizens seems to have popped up out of nowhere, and has never been glimpsed by me in the wild, as it were.
So Madison, et. al., didn't know what they were doing when they specified "natural born" for president and in no other instance? That just slipped by them when they really meant "just plain ol' citizen".
I agree with that as represented.
Since there are questions about anyone else (otherwise there wouldn’t be these long discussion threads) if a candidate did not meet this criteria, should it not be the candidate’s responsibility to prove conclusively that he/she is a natural born citizen also, as opposed to us having to prove they’re not?
I would say it is definitely the candidate's responsibility and it shouldn't be left up to a political party to do so. If the political party does so when it's false then they're guilty of fraud IMO.
...do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military?
Well in some cases yes. If they served on the British side...no. If they served on the American side...then yes.
That's why the clause was written the way it was. Loyalty was considered and easily proven.
“Natural law existed prior to the establishment of the Constitution.”
Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms. What didn’t exist prior to the establishment of the Constitution was the U.S. You cannot be a citizen of the U.S. by nature in the same way that you have a right to bear arms by nature. You need positive law, namely the U.S. Constitution.
“Or are you going to argue that natural law didn’t exist under the Articles of Confederation which was prior to the Constitution?”
That’s neither here nor there. The U.S. and the nation that existed under the Articles of the Confederation—which was called what, the American Confederacy?—are not one. Before the Constitution you were a citizen of the Confederacy or the state in which you lived. Before the Articles of Confederation, you were a citizen of your state and informally I guess of the quasi-nation under the Continental Congress. Before the Continental Congress, you were a British subject. Before the Brish came over, I don’t know, you were a Red Indian.
None of this is by nature, but rather by law and custom.
“The rest of your post is even worthy of response”
I love how birthers so casually and regularly appeal to natural versus positive law, and then when you try and actually parse what qualifies for each they can’t condescend to respond. it’s as if even to shoot me down, if they can, would be to sully the good name of nature.
How?
Via a brief Constitutional Convention Reenactment. Here's how it went.
Cautious Framer: ‘What exactly do we mean by, ‘natural born citizen’?
Progressive Framer: ‘Why, any baby born on US soil, obviously.’
C Framer: ‘Uh...is that *really* what we mean? Because if it is, King George or any other enemy of the Republic could take advantage of it to undermine the Republic.’
Prog Framer: ‘How so?’
C Framer. ‘Easy. He could arrange to have a child born here, bring it back to England, indoctrinate it against the Republic, and then send it back to run for office. Under the right circumstances, the Enemy of the Republic could win, and destroy everything we're about to give our blood and treasure to create.’
Prog Framer: ‘Granted. But in the first case, that's a worst case scenario and might never happen. In the second, if we're more restrictive, history will say we discriminated against innocent babies. I can't speak for you, but that's now how *I* want to be remembered.’
C Framer: ‘Isn't it better to be a little restrictive than to risk the entire Republic? If, for instance, we limited the highest office of the land to the offspring of US citizens, it would vastly decrease the opportunity for foreign enemies to destroy the US from within.’
Prog Framer: ‘No way. Under that scenario, the children of foreign enemies of the Republic could be born on US soil but still be Second Class Citizens. Just because they have divided loyalties and may seek to ‘fundamentally change’ and/or destroy the Republic is no reason to discriminate against them. Better to lose the entire Republic than hurt the feelings of an innocent baby. Besides, diversity is our strength—and included in diversity are those who hate the Republic. The only thing that matters, and that will ever matter, is what little patch of terra firma the baby happens to be born on. So what if they're loyal to a foreign country--even one that hates the Republic and seeks to destroy it? Non-discrimination trumps every other consideration, case closed.’
What does that have to do with anything? It's simple. You said anyone covered under 8 USC § 1401 had to be an alien first, because the larger 8 USC was titled "Aliens and Nationality."
But 8 USC § 1401 begins, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
When is someone who's a "citizen of the United States at birth" ever an alien? In the womb?
Natural born citizen is being compared to the only OTHER type of citizenship recognized by the US Constitution going forward - naturalized citizens.
Citizens means all types of citizens. There has been, in the history of this Republic - only three types. Those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (most were natural born subjects of England) and they are all dead at this point. The other two types are “naturalized” and “natural born”.
One is either a citizen at birth with natural allegiance - or one is naturalized via a legal process.
This view of the law doesn't render any verbiage of the Constitution superfluous.
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.