Posted on 05/08/2013 8:03:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In one of my first essays for NRO back in 2005 (“Are You an Originalist?”), I selected the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” criterion for eligibility to be president—a provision that then seemed at the time to be beyond the distorting effects of political bias—to illustrate that everyone intuitively recognizes the common-sense principle at the heart of the interpretive methodology of originalism: namely, that the meaning of a constitutional provision is to be determined in accordance with the meaning that it bore at the time that it was adopted. The public debate in 2008 over whether John McCain, having been born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone to parents who were American citizens, was a “natural born Citizen” ratified my point, as virtually all commentators purported to undertake an originalist inquiry.
I hadn’t seen any reason to comment on the left-wing “birther” attacks on Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president. Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who was then an American citizen. Under the laws then in place, he was an American citizen by virtue of his birth.
As this Congressional Research Service report sums it up (p. 25; see also pp. 16-21), the “overwhelming evidence of historical intent, general understandings [in 18th-century America], and common law principles underlying American jurisprudence thus indicate[s] that the most reasonable interpretation of ‘natural born’ citizens would include those who are considered U.S. citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ … under existing federal statutory law incorporating long-standing concepts of jus sanguinis, the law of descent.” In other words, there is strong originalist material to support the semantic signal that “natural born Citizen” identifies someone who is a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of his birth—as distinguished from someone who is naturalized later in life as a citizen. (In McCain’s case, the dispute turned on whether he was indeed an American citizen by virtue of his birth—or was instead naturalized a citizen under a law enacted when he was eleven months old. For more, see law professor Gabriel Chin’s lengthy article making the case against McCain.)
To my surprise, the New Republic’s Noam Scheiber tries to argue that Cruz’s embrace of constitutional originalism somehow means that Cruz can’t determine that he is a “natural born Citizen.” But the only evidence that Scheiber offers for this position is the assertion (which Scheiber mischaracterizes as a concession) by a non-originalist law professor in an MSNBC interview that the proposition that a person is a “natural born Citizen” if he is a citizen by virtue of his birth “isn’t really clear cut if you limit yourself to the actual wording of the Constitution” (that’s Scheiber’s paraphrase) but instead depends on “how our understandings have evolved over time.” Scheiber both overlooks the powerful originalist evidence in support of Cruz’s status as a “natural born Citizen” and misunderstands how originalist methodology operates. (In public-meaning originalism, you don’t “limit yourself to the actual wording of the Constitution,” and you don’t find yourself lost simply because the Constitution “never defines what ‘natural born’ means.” You instead look to the public meaning of the term at the time it was adopted.)
My point here isn’t to contend that the originalist evidence points entirely in one direction. As law professor Michael Ramsey observes in a post that I’ve run across while finalizing this post (a post that also takes issue with Scheiber), there are originalist scholars who don’t “find the argument entirely conclusive.” But Scheiber’s piece is a cheap whack at Cruz as well as a cheap whack at originalism.
The power of the legislature is limited ..by the forms and principles of the..Constitution.
Is this International law?
Wondering if Thomas Jefferson could cite Vattel as justification to expand Westward.
Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be omitted without changing the fundamental meaning of the phrase.
A natural born subject is in no way similar to a natural born citizen.
A citizen is not a subject.
What is “natural” for a monarch and his subjects is antithetical for a republic and its citizens.
“Natural born” is not a simple adjectival phrase, like “big red”.
A big red ball is fundamentally the same thing as a red ball, a big ball, or a ball.
A natural born citizen is fundamentally different than a natural citizen, a born citizen, or citizen: omitting any part changes the fundamental meaning of the whole.
You believe that a “born citizen” and a “natural born citizen” are the same, that “natural” is superfluous. As we saw with the big red ball, if one part can be omitted then any part can be omitted. Yet that rule can not be applied here unless we accept that a natural citizen, a born citizen, and a citizen, are fundamentally the same. Do you accept that a born citizen and a citizen are the same, even though a citizen may be naturalized? In your view a naturalized citizen is not eligible for the Presidency while a born citizen is, so a born citizen and a citizen are not the same.
It is apparent that no part of the phrase can be omitted without changing the fundamental meaning of the phrase.
No, it isn't.
And "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" are KNOWN to have been used in an absolutely synonymous way in the early United States.
You have no word of any Founder, Framer, or any real legal authority in history to back up that claim. It's BS.
The capabilities of the ball - big, red, or big and red - are unchanged.
The capabilities of a citizen - natural, born, or natural born - do change.
Proclaiming something is “BS” is not persuasive. Show the error, not what someone else said about this or that, you show the specific error.
//
How states used citizen and subject is not relevant because states grew from colonies. The United States did not. It is founded on different principles.
Nonsense. The first paragraph you copied has no citations to a stated legal precedent. The second paragraph contains nothing directly related to presidential eligibility with the possible exception of Wong Kim Ark's citation of U.S. v. Rhodes, which itself was referencing Shanks v. Dupont. That citation proves that Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen because he was born "in the allegiance of the king." That's what that citation was referring to. It allowed that persons born in the United States could be born in the allegiance of another country WITHOUT just being born to an "ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born." Thanks for helping prove my point so very clearly.
Nonsense. The first paragraph you copied has no citations to a stated legal precedent. The second paragraph contains nothing directly related to presidential eligibility with the possible exception of Wong Kim Ark's citation of U.S. v. Rhodes, which itself was referencing Shanks v. Dupont. That citation proves that Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen because he was born "in the allegiance of the king." That's what that citation was referring to. It allowed that persons born in the United States could be born in the allegiance of another country WITHOUT just being born to an "ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born." Thanks for helping prove my point so very clearly.
You are most welcome, I’m glad that I could offer assistance.
Now I’m sure that you understand and I’m happy to read that you have acknowledged that the original jurisdiction judge in Purpura & Moran v. Obama did indeed include cited legal precedent in his opinion.
Perhaps you’ll also be interested to learn that when a three judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Court was asked to review the Purpura, Moran v. Obama decision, their affirmation of the initial ruling stated, in part: “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s THOROUGH and THOUGHTFUL written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.” [capitalization, mine]
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2012/a4478-11.html
I won't say the matter has been beyond stupid from the beginning. But I do think there has been dishonesty from the very beginning by some people who have made the extraordinary citizenship claims.
By "extraordinary," I mean claims that have no credibility at all in history or in law.
All you need to do is look at the IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT itself, and it clearly states that Cruz's Citizenship is through 'Naturalization'. I guess you can't understand that 'Naturalization' can be an automatic process.
The First Congress passed a "Naturalization Act" in 1790, less than 2 years after the Constitution was ratified and became the supreme law of the land. That Act specified that children born abroad to US citizens were to be considered as natural born citizens, provided only that the father had lived in the US at some point in his life.
The Congress and President that approved the Act included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution.
So it is clear that the Signers of the Constitution believed Congress had the power to specify, through a "naturalization act," who among those born abroad were to be legally considered as natural born citizens, and thus eligible to the Presidency.
Here is section 320, the one that applies to Cruz.
I don't know Cruz's family history in intimate detail, but assume his dad wasn't a US citizen yet. So almost certainly, the section that applies to him is Section 301(a)(7):
Sec. 301(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:...
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable serivce in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
This is why every major commentator who publicly comments on it says he's most likely eligible.
Because he is a CITIZEN due to a NATURALIZATION ACT?
WAY WAY beyond stupid.
Oh that's right, "every major commentator" so it must be true. Never mind.
WAY WAY beyond stupid.
I've often observed the idiocy of birthers. Just another example.
Those who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION obviously understood that a person born a citizen outside of the United States could be made eligible to the Presidency through a "Naturalization Act," SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST CONGRESS.
This, incidentally, is pretty much how things had long been: They got the term "NATURAL BORN" from the English and American common law. THE TERM APPEARED NOWHERE ELSE IN LAW OR IN LANGUAGE, OTHER THAN IN THE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN COMMON LAW.
Historically, all persons born in the country were automatically "natural born" subjects. Parliament had always been able to additionally declare (and had done so before) which persons born abroad were ALSO to be included in that category of persons.
So whether you, in your stunning brilliance, think the idea is "WAY WAY beyond stupid," the FOUNDING FATHERS AND SIGNERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION DID NOT THINK SO. A full 40% of those who SIGNED our Constitution were in on the passage of that law. So the FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION obviously signed off on the idea.
Oh. And the FOUNDING FATHERS said it. SO IT'S TRUE.
That's the difference between Constitutionalists and birthers. CONSTITUTIONALISTS RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS. BIRTHERS don't.
Not to mention, “WAY WAY beyond stupid.”
Which means that YOU, sir, are not a Constitutionalist. You’re a BIRTHER.
Bombast is not persuasive.
The naturalization act you cited specifies “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”.
The Founding Fathers said Cruz is eligible? I didn’t know any where still alive.
All caps, bold face, red, underline... wow. Must make it truthier.
You behave like a foul mouthed little boy.
You behave like a foul mouthed little boy.
YOU'RE the person who started the exchange, by rudely (and wrongly) saying that what I had just said was "WAY WAY beyond stupid."
You said:
The naturalization act you cited specifies “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”.
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...
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..."
These are the words of the First Congress. The Act was approved by that First Congress and promptly signed into law by President George Washington. The group that approved this law contained 40% of the men who had signed the Constitution, and undoubtedly more who had voted to ratify it.
Oh. And I wasn't the one who has characterized the words and deeds of our Founding Fathers, Framers of the Constitution and early legal experts as "horse sh*t," "crap," and "WAY WAY beyond stupid."
That would be your buddy DiogenesLamp, and (in the case of the latter) you.
You cited “Sec. 301(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”
Are you now contending that citizen and natural born citizen are the same?
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.