Posted on 01/12/2016 6:10:48 AM PST by rebuildus
The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." So we are left to use our common sense, and search the phrase's origins.
To take it back as far as it will go requires us to look at the book of Deuteronomy. Israel demanded a king, and God gave them one, but he gave them some parameters:
You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman (Deuteronomy 17:15).
The point is loyalty. Where are the loyalties of the "king"?
In the case of Senator Cruz, knowing that he was born of an American mother, and a father who chose to leave the country of his birth to live in America, it's fair to say that Ted's parents' loyalty was to the United States.
This is the central question, for the core of all law is its spirit, or intent.
The only weak spot I see in this situation is, because both Ted's father and Ted himself came to America from another country, I can certainly see that they would have a soft spot for immigrants, which may cause Ted's immigration policies to be more lenient, than if they had been born in the U.S.
That being said, on the primary question--loyalty--Ted appears rock solid. And I've seen nothing in his life and political career to indicate otherwise.
“...it’s fair to say that Ted’s parents’ loyalty was to the United States.”
Why? Ted’s father became a Canadian citizen.
The only time naturalized or other legal created citizenship would apply to presidential qualifications was at the time of adoption of the US Constitution as it says in black and white.
The Clause at issue is this one please note it distinguishes natural born citizen from citizen.
âNo 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;...â
The only time a legal-created citizenship mattered for president was â... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,â and this aint 1776 no more.
Very rational conclusion.
“The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term “Natural Born Citizen.”
You are mistaken. It was defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and Natural Born Citizen: What Our Framers Knew
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
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
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
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
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) 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 because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.
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.
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen
Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Quite the twisted use of religion.
Everybody survived -- except for Loretta Fuddy
If you are a citizen then you are either 1. a natural born citizen, or 2. a naturalized citizen.
There is no third category.
The term “Founding Fathers” is not generally used to refer to Congress, even the Congress in 1790. It more commonly refers to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence or drafted / signed / ratified the Constitution.
And therefore should stand solidly against illegal immigrants. There are few who abhor illegal immigrants more then those who immigrated here legally.
Actually, that's a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the phrasing of the Act. It used the phrase "natural born," but with the word "as" preceding it. In other words, folks affected by the act were made "as natural born," ie, as if they were natural born. They weren't naturally citizens, but they became "naturalized," by the statute.
Apparently by 1795 the founders realized that such phrasing could confuse some people though, so they removed it.
You can be made a citizen by virtue of statute, or you can be natural born. You can't be both.
Under “Natural Law” were slaves and the children of slaves born in the land considered Natural Born Citizens?
Or was Natural Born Citizenship conferred on the basis of existing statutes?
Very professionally done.
There is now. According to the current government, there is the new category of "undocumented citizen".
==========================================
BACKSTORY Cruz was born in Canada to a Canadian father and a Delaware-born American mother......thus making Cruz a dual Canadian-American citizen. Texans elected him to the US Senate not knowing he was a dual Canadian citizen.
It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator publicly renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.
Cruz consistently depicted himself as "latino" Yet his family bgrnd indicates only his father is Spanish; his mother is of two nationalities, Italian and Irish from each of her parents.
Cruz ran in Texas as a latino (which has a wealth of latino votes). Cruz even convinced the Senate biographer that he was the first latino elected to the Senate (besides Rubio).
As the immigration issue grew negative in the world of politics, being known as a latino has lost its luster.
===============================================
WIKI The 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, noted that the natural born citizen clause is "a means of security against foreign influence" and that "[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."
=============================================
NOTE At the time, King George, and lordly England, were the colonists' boogeymen. It was feared the wealthy Brits could surreptitiously buy their way into our new country's councils and wreak havoc.
====================================================
OLD THINGS SEEM SUDDENLY NEW AGAIN Cruz's wife is a Goldman Sachs exec.
Mrs Cruz served on the North American Union task force, and supported their report called---'Building a North American Community."
The North/South border effort was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
Translated into English, that means forget US sovereignty....just eradicate US borders.
Canada is under the jurisdiction of England.
All Citizenship in a country is derived by virtue of statutes. Some countries do not have citizenship or they confer it only upon only certain individuals. In the United States in 1789, there were millions of people who were born in the United States to parents born in the United States who were not granted any kind of citizenship. Citizenship in 1789 was a privilege and not a natural right.
In this matter, it’s very hard to use a biblical reference to kings as at the time of our founding Great Brittan was ruled by the house of Hanover and had been since 1714. Clearly, any definition of common understanding has to do with the cases cited in posting 6. The Cruz eligibility argument is spurious at best and disingenuous at worst. It all seems to be about sucking the ethanol argument out of the Hawk-eye Caucus.
And corrected in 1795.. So tired of hearing about 1790...
And I’m in the middle hear, waiting for it to be settled...
Please let this be settled.. Oh, I have an opinion on this,
but I’m no expert like all Ya’ll.
Sounds good, except they were the same people. Let me help you, let’s do the math. 1790-1787=3. Yes three years separated the writing of the Constitution from the First Congress. Did you think the “Founders” wrote the Constitution and then decided to retire.
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.