Posted on 06/11/2014 11:18:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
~~snip~~ (just the facts, ma'am).
But what won't prevent Cruz from becoming president is his place of birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, while his parents were living there. His father is now an American citizen, but was not at the time; his mother, however, was born in the United States.
Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz's case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here's a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.
~~snip~~
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Well, there are some real purists (wrongly in my opinion) on FR when it comes to being born on the actual soil. They don’t even usually allow for military bases, embassies, etc.
Even if a couple of American citizens are on vacation in London and the woman prematurely gives birth...the child can’t be president they argue.
Ridiculous and wrong constitutionally if you ask me. The key provision is “under the jurisdiction thereof”.
“Under the jurisdiction thereof” takes care of that. Some ‘conservatives’ leave that off like the libs leave off the part of the 1st Amendment about religion about “and the free practice thereof”.
Let me say it again: the term natural born citizen is NOT defined in the Constitution.
Natal = birth
Nat(birth)ural born citizen = born a citizen
So, you are either born a citizen or you are made a citizen (naturalIZED)
Congress gets to decide who is born a citizen.
Article I, Section 8
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To...
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and
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.
Yes, the laws of nature do bow to Congress, the Supreme Court’s possible ruling on constitutionality and the signature of the president on legislation according to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”—Article VI, Clause 2
What the Courts have ruled consistently since 1898 (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark) is that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is the final word on who is and who isn’t a citizen and what category of the two (and only two) categories “ALL PERSONS” fit into (born or naturalized); and that statutes that have been unchallenged or that have been ruled as constitutional under the 14th Amendment are the supreme Law of the Land.
Its really very simple. A citizen of the United States at birth is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be president or vice president. A naturalized U.S. citizen had citizenship conferred after birth and is ineligible to be president or vice president.
Even if a couple of American citizens are on vacation in London and the woman prematurely gives birth...the child can’t be president they argue.
Well said and every point you made is valid and irrefutable.
As a personal example, my father was killed in combat during the early stage of WWII. Before leaving for overseas, I was conceived here in Texas by a mother who was native Texan. But pregnant with a child on the way (me) and in this crisis of her husband's death, she moved in with his parents who happened to be in Pennsylvania. Thus, my birth certificate show "Penn'a" and not "Tex". That's how it was abbreviated back in the 1940s before the leftists started that silly two-letter state code.
But since life begins at conception, is there any doubt that I'm indeed a native Texan? The first seven months of my life in the womb were nurtured here in this Great State and the only the last two were in "Penn'a". I sure consider myself a native Texan and certainly fit the criteria better than unhinged leftists such as Tommy Lee Jones, Bob Schieffer, Wendy Davis, Domingo Garcia, Willie Nelson and Matthew McConaughey.
Likewise Senator Ted Cruz is more thoroughly Texan than just about anyone short of Sam Houston and Davy Crockett. The "Calgary" stamp on is birth certificate is meaningless in my eyes. He lives and breathes the Christian Conservative values that are at the heart of being a Texan.
I don't think it works the way you describe. Next you will be telling me that Congress gets to decide what constitutes "the right to keep and bear arms". Doesn't the Supreme Court have a say in these matters?
We will have to disagree as to whether the power of Congress to control naturalization means that they get to define "natural born citizen".
At least if you agree that your interpretation results in the possibility that the heir to the British throne could become President if his other parent was an American citizen, then at least your thinking would be consistent.
I find that hypothetical possibility so unlikely to have been acceptable to our Founders that I cannot accept your approach to defining a term which already had a definition at the time the Founders used the term.
Since the Fourteenth Amendment specifically mentions a new disability to be President, I find your argument that this constitutes the present definition for "natural born citizen" rather persuasive.
I am not persuaded that such a definition was intended by our Founders.
Congress CAN pass legislation about weapons. That’s what we’ve been fighting all these years. Diane Feinstein has a bill ready that lists the weapons you can own and those you can’t. I think I posted it after Sandy Hook.
She’s not got it ready because she thinks she’s not allowed to legislate in that area.
She thinks she can. So did Mitt Romney who said he supports the type of gun legislation he passed in Massachusetts.
There are lots of things in amendments that weren’t intended by the Founders: women’s suffrage, abolition of slavery, the federal income tax,
direct election of senators, just to name a few.
The Founders never intended for the Supreme Court to have the power of judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall invented that power for use in the United States through his decision in Marbury v Madison and it has stuck for the last 211 years.
The founders were prescient enough to know that their original thinking was not necessarily applicable for all time. That’s why they made it possible to change the constitution by amendment.
Also the Founders were rarely of one mind on any constitutional issue. The notes from the Constitutional Convention meetings show us that there were huge fights over many issues and very few things that ended up in the Constitution were decided unanimously.
There are no notes and no record of a vote ever being taken on “natural born citizen” unfortunately.
Although they have, every word of it is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment allows for no infringement.
Why did the Constitution limit the power it granted Congress over matters of citizenship to naturalization? Because Citizenship acquired solely by any law passed by Congress cannot logically be anything other than naturalized citizenship—by definition of naturalization. It's logically impossible for any act of Congress to make anyone a citizen by natural law. At most, such a law would be declaratory of natural law—because a citizen by natural law is a citizen no matter what laws Congress may or may not enact.
In fact, given the Founders' understanding of natural law versus man-made law, it would have been a logical contradiction to grant Congress the power to change or define natural law on any subject, not just regarding citizenship—because natural law, by late 18th-century definition, cannot be made by a legislature or head of state. That's why Congress was granted no such powers in any domain at all. Such a power could be used, among other things. to change the meaning of words, including those in the Constitution itself. The dangers of that should be obvious.
If Congress had the power to make anyone a natural citizen, it would also necessarily have the power to strip citizenship from anyone it chose. The fact it cannot logically have any such power—and is granted no such power by the Constitution—is one of the fundamental protections against tyranny. The power to revoke even natural law citizenship by law is the power to commit any act against anyone that the sovereign power of war permits.
So why didn't the Constitution define the term natural born citizen? For the same reason it could only grant Congress the power to define naturalized citizens. For the Constitution to actually define the term "natural born citizen" would necessarily mean that that status would be granted by man-made law, and not by natural law. That's why the Constitution provides no definition, and why it must be a court that decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen by applying natural law principles—which is exactly how English common law handled questions of natural citizenship.
But the ratification of the 14th Amendment introduced into the Constitution a rule of citizenship that declared anyone who (a) was born in the United States, and (b) was subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth, to be a citizen. Since the 14th Amendment is a man-made law, and is not natural law, the 14th Amendment logically cannot make anyone be a natural citizen. Nor does it create the logical contradiction of attempting to do so, since it makes no mention of natural citizenship of any kind, and does not use the term "natural born citizen."
It makes perfect sense if you have a basic understanding of Natural Law.
interesting you'd go right to a personal attack - what a charming soul - have a blessed day
If Congress gets to decide who needs to be made a citizen (naturalized), then it is automatically defining who does not. I’m sure you see that.
Current law says that anyone born overseas to one US parent is recognized as a citizen at birth. That is similar to every law Congress has passed on the subject all the way back to the first naturalization act in 1790.
So, we can wish and want and hope and dream and write all we want about what we think “natural born” means, but it doesn’t change a thing in the actual laws passed by Congress....who is empowered by our Constitution with authority over this particular matter.
Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.." It is clear that you lack a basic understanding of Natural Law and it's importance in the framing of our Constitution.
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
So, Blackstone doesn't help you any.
From Blackstone's Commentaries:
When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
First off - there are no British "citizens". They are all subjects of the crown.
They key sentence in the Blackstone quote you posted is:
" But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: "
No law enacted by man can supersede the Laws of Nature. So in essence the British crown enacted a form of naturalization at birth statute.
This is similar to what happened with our own Naturalization act of 1790. Which was soon after corrected with the Naturalization act of 1795:
The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.
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.