On Ted Cruz Eligibility . . .

Vanity | January 8, 2016 | Behind the Blue Wall

[thackney]

omits the natural born language

- - - - -

So the only time time they explained the term, it included births to citizens on foreign soil.

After a couple elections, a different congress used a different term, and did not explain or define Natural Born Citizen.

Do you think the founding father were confused in 1790? Just mistaken?

[DiogenesLamp]

The US Constitution is the first and only legal authority for all laws that govern the actions of the US government, the states and anyone, or anything subject to it's authority.

Citizenship was created by the Declaration of Independence. It was not created by the Constitution, it was simply acknowledged by it. By the time the Constitution came along, US Citizenship was already 12 years old. The constitution does not presume to speak for God in overriding nature. It acknowledges that he is "Lord" at the end of that document.

[thackney]

I think some people will never be satisfied, and will always have one more question, just need one more document...

Cheers!

[DiogenesLamp]

Did that make them eligible to become President?

Not if you are splitting hairs. "Considered as" is not the same thing as "is."

In practice, during that era, i'm not certain how they would have regarded it. I would suppose that they would have accepted it.

[randita]

Natural born is the same as citizen at birth. Brilliant legal scholars all agree with this. I have yet to read anything from a renowned legal scholar citing anything different.

Yet certain Freepers think they know better.

No matter what Cruz produces, it will be doubted - called a forgery, etc.

He’s best to just call it all nonsense and let the birthers wallow in their own Tom-foolery.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Founders wrote both Acts. The only logical purpose for that I could think of would to stay in accordance with the Constitution's grandfather clause and limit the window for foreign 'natural' born citizens.

I was thinking they changed it because they realized they were presumptuous in their previous iteration. In the 1790 act, they presumed to define an act of nature as being within their power. By 1795, the fallacy of this had already been pointed out to them, and they cleaned it up when they re-wrote the act.

That is just how I have been regarding it up to now.

[Godebert]

The only legal document I've seen by the founding fathers describing Natural Born Citizen is the Naturalization Act of 1790, which says they are natural born citizens.

Have you found another legal document from them that states it differently? Not an opinion of different individuals, but a legal document from the founding fathers?

Yes I have, It's called the Naturalization Act of 1795, which, with the lead of then rep. James Madison and the approval of George Washington specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

[lucky american]

So while N.Korea detonates a bomb, Obama tries to take away our 2nd amendment rights, Hillary is getting away with murder, litterly, you’re worried whether a man who truly cares about this country is a citizen according to the Constitution,
Time to stop eating our own and go after the true lawbreakers.

[thackney]

So it did not define the term then.

Do you think they were confused in 1790?

[thackney]

Not if you are splitting hairs. "Considered as" is not the same thing as "is."

Was there any other purpose in writing it? Was there any other reason to be considered as natural born?

[DiogenesLamp]

Natural born is the same as citizen at birth. Brilliant legal scholars all agree with this. I have yet to read anything from a renowned legal scholar citing anything different.

Yet certain Freepers think they know better.

They do. Because they have done a better job at researching this issue than all these "Brilliant legal scholars" who haven't really spent any significant time on it.

This is not something the law schools spend any time on. They simply cite Wong Kim Ark, and leave it at that.

[DiogenesLamp]

So it did not define the term then.

Do you think they were confused in 1790?

I notice the US Constitution cites "Arms" but does not define the term. Nor does it even mention "bullets."

Do you think they were confused in 1787?

[thackney]

From your link:

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress deleted “natural born” from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject...

The rest was just guessing by the Author.

I particularly like:

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II “natural born Citizen?” After all, a “natural born Citizen” was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

If it is not dependent upon law, exactly what are the citizen of? The country is formed by the laws passed by the government.

[MamaTexan]

Quibble away! LOL!

On the first, their caution was understandable. Britain and France had always been rather touchy about the whole separating from ones sovereign thing. No reason to give them any excuses by dangling a naturalized American in front of them.... but they still don't define it.

---

Second quibble -shall be considered

Yes, I've noticed that too. Like they weren't actually natural born, just shall be considered AS such.

[thackney]

God Bless you. Perhaps you can find someone else to play with your straw-man arguments.

I’ll stick with what they wrote down on their legal documents.

If you find where they made a different explanation or definition, I would like to see it.

[Radix]

There are people all around this world who care about America. In many cases their lives and freedoms are dependent upon her.

If in 2008 the NBC clause was invoked and enforced we would not have many of the problems which we have today.

It matters.

[Godebert]

Go on with Mark Levin & debate him...or if you don't like him, try Clement, Katyal, Olson or Tribe...

Why would anyone want to debate Levin on his program? He would just get all upset, hang up on the caller and then proceed to hurl insults over the air.

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The Harvard Law Review Article by Neil Katyal and Paul Clement Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed, Shaming the two Harvard Frauds

[DiogenesLamp]

Was there any other purpose in writing it? Was there any other reason to be considered as natural born?

I think it was just the popular term of art during that period. The current "buzzword" so to speak. Perhaps they meant it to convey an ability to be President, or perhaps they never really considered the possibility that it would be a modification of what were the then accepted standards of eligibility.

I know that the English law that says the same thing (and which was much older) uses similar verbiage.

I will however point out that none of these "Natural born subjects" would ever become the chief executive officer of Britain. :)

[MamaTexan]

Brilliant legal scholars all agree with this.

'Brilliant legal scholars' are typically lawyers.

I also don't buy into the idea the Founders wrote something so complex, only a 'brilliant legal scholar' could understand it.

[thackney]

I think it was just the popular term of art during that period.

I find that a quite a stretch for why they chose that language for the constitution, and then the Act. Especially when people has some much difficulty find support from the writings of the founding fathers on either side of the argument.

It seems to me they put a lot of effort and debate into the very specific language used.