Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
**snip**
This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.
As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, it probably never will.
The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.” **snip**
want to go on record again objecting to the term “birther.” If the term were confined to conspiracy theorists, that would be one thing. But it has become a tool to shut down even legitimate debate.
The term was used as a pejorative as part of a deliberate Obama campaign strategy to shut down debate on his issues **snip**
5. The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant **snip**
6. “natural born Citizen” usage at the time of drafting the Constitution is uncertain **snip**
7. British common and statutory law doesn’t solve the problem **snip**
8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
Read the instructions again. You don’t even become a citizen when the paperwork is started. It just begins the process.
If his mother failed to file the paperwork he would have remained just a Canadian citizen.
If she filed the paperwork when he was two years old, then what country was he a citizen of at the age of one???Hmmmm
And what country was he a citizen of at birth???? Hmmmm
Until the paperwork is accepted and certified no foreign born person becomes a citizen — and certainly not at birth.
My birth certificate and everyone else’s in this country is issued the day of birth and the place of birth.
Cruz had a Canadian birth certificate on the day of his birth.
Here is what the law has to say about it:The laws as described below by the U.S. State Department say your opinion of your experiences and your resulting conclusions are wrong.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 1 of 69
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
7 FAM 1130
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013) (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/L)
7 FAM 1131 BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF ACQUISITION
7 FAM 1131.1 Authority
7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes
(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of “jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).
b. Section 104(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) gives the Secretary of State the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of all nationality laws relating to “the determination of nationality of a person not in the United States.”
….]
7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.
Note how the acquisition of U.S. Citizenship is goverened by Federal statutes. There is direct proof the acquisition of U.S. Citizenship was “goverened” and therefore authorized by manmade laws, making the resulting citizenship an artificial form of citizenship, which is the exact opposite in meaning from a natural citizenship. See the legal definitions for what is natural versus what is artificial and legal status.
Also note how there are “Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship” governed by the manmade and artificial statutes of law, which no natural born citizen requires for acquisition of U.S. Citizenship.
Now who do you expect us to recognize as having merit to their statements, you and your opinions of your experiences or the black and white letters of the law?
Yo birther, you be Cruzing for a zot!
I didn’t start the thread, the topic of which is Presidential eligibility, and I am merely following the rules and staying on topic.
The thread can be locked at any time.
Sorry, your reading comprehension is lousy. What you posted supports my statements exactly.
You really are an idiot. Seriously. Your mother had to file paperwork, too. Does that mean you were not a citizen until she did so? A baby without a country? her filing the paperwork was not an application to be accepted as a US citizen, it was an affirmation that her baby was a US citizen. BIG difference. The US recognizes the baby as a US citizen but the US needs to be notified of that fact so that a US passport could be issued for the baby’s travel back into the US.
Just like your mother had to do or else no citizenship for you either. If your mother had not processed a birth certificate in the modern times you’d be screwed, too.
Geez, you’re dense.
I leave for a few hours and come back ... and I missed today’s lecture from “Advanced Concepts of the Legal System” or whatever this class is called.
Are there any pre-requisites?
I know there is a greater meaning to this. Does it mean that the Roman Empire is about to fall? Is it a sign of the end times? Or does it mean we are on the verge of a great western Renaissance? Should I move to Belize?
Hey bonehead —
Birth certificates are issued by the hospital. You don’t apply for them. They come with the baby. It’s a package deal.
And you often have them in your hand within minutes of birth.
Wake up and smell the real world.
“Sorry, your reading comprehension is lousy. What you posted supports my statements exactly.”
What part of “acquisition of U.S. Citizenship is goverened by Federal statutes” did you fail to read, comprehend, and understand? Statutory law is artificial and and not natural, by legal definition. Why do you insist upon claiming that which is artificial as demonstrated by the law is somehow supposed to be natural in direct dontradiction to its legal definition?
Yes you are right.... But the argument the Dems are more likley to make is ..... """You Republicans are hypocrites!!! for eight years many of you claimed that Obama was ineligible but everyone knows he was born here in here in the good ol USA!!! YOUR GUY CRUZ is FOREIGN BORN but you claim he is eligible????"""
Hence, if Cruz is our nominee, we should be prepared and not naive. The Dems will not hesitate to use any doubt about his eligibility against against him.
The MSM will support the Dems argument and will repeat this talking point over and over.
Back in 2008, the dems wanted McCain to run so much that they sponsored a resolution stating he was natural born.
Just watch.... There will no similar resolution for Cruz. They want Cruz to run so they can make his eligibility a campaign issue.
I made no error. The point, which you have missed entirely, is that NBC & NBS were being used interchangeably by one of the legislatures that ratified the US Constitution. Thus NBC = NBS, and NBS had an established legal meaning.
Natural born citizen was a legal phrase. It was not something made up for use in the Constitution. It was in use, by legislatures, several years prior to the writing of the Constitution.
“Statutory law is artificial and and not natural, by legal definition.”
I see, you’re one of those redefine the English language to try to defend a silly position. “Natural law”? Where do I find that in the law library? Please give us the Black’s Law Dictionary legal definition of “natural law” for citizenship. My copy only talks about natural law pertaining to things of nature and not human governance.
You barracks lawyers always like to say stupid phrases such as, “Statutory law is artificial and and not natural, by legal definition”, as though there is such a thing. There isn’t. All laws are man made. The definition of a citizen by birth is up to each nation to define as they wish.
Our laws say a person is a natural born citizen under certain circumstances, of which Cruz’s birth is accepted.
There you go trying to put words in my mouth that i never said and implying meanings I never implied. Just because I directed you to Calvin’s Case does not mean that I am relying upon the natural born subject definition. On the contrary, I am not. The legal concept of a difference between datus and natus are age old and ancient in origin. Calvin’s case simply made use of them within the context of English law. The concept was certainly not unique to English law. On the contrary, it was common to all systems of law that adopted elements or whole systems of Roman law dating back to the Antonine natural law treatises. You can even argue the concept transcends cultures and civilizations when you consider how diverse cultures often recognized the difference between the natural subject and the proxy or totem used in sacrifices, punishments, and various juristic procedures and rituals. Suffice it to note that nature can produce a Man, but it takes a manmade law to pronounce a manmade stone idol to be “considered as” a man and “deemed” a man for legal purposes.
Yeah, I'll let you know if I decide to start.
Meanwhile, those gentlemen are not natural born citizens of the United States and are debarred by the Constitution from the Presidency.
Never mind that a mountebank and catamite is defiling the office as we speak.
“The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution...”Yes, of course it does.
Which would indicate it has a very special and significant meaning.....
Not so much.
Dunham was a minor, and Barack Sr. was not, as you say; he was an adult British national. But he never married, and could not marry, Stanley Ann Dunham under U.S. law inasmuch as he was already married to Kezia Obama in Kenya; and therefore the Obama-Dunham marriagejoke was null and void. Barack Obama Junior is a bastard, and his real citizenship is anyone's guess as long as he succeeds in defeating legal efforts to elucidate his citizenship status.
Which will fail, I think, under court scrutiny of his natal and subsequent documentation, to substantiate that he was and is in fact a Natural Born Citizen. Which is what he wants to cover up.
Great find, Lakeshark, and thanks for the ping P-Marlowe!
One thing I don’t understand though. It says in the article:
“term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. ..”
Why does William Jacobson include in his article that it is not defined “IN THE WRITINGS” when our Framers made their intent clear:
“Naturalization Act of 1790:
“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:”
Suddenly I can’t read past the first eleven, or so, posts on some of the pages.
Anyone else having that problem?
Yes.
Thanx!
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.