Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate
Self | 1/12/16 | Rebuildus

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: belongsinchat; cruz; naturalborncitizen; trump; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: randita

A totally irrelevant website in terms of this discussion.

One would have to be pretty darned naive to be fooled by such misdirection.


81 posted on 01/12/2016 10:23:30 AM PST by EternalVigilance ('A man without force is without the essential dignity of humanity.' - Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: randita
The Constitution does not define natural born.

It didn't have to. The founders had a shared understanding of what the term meant, as expressed in the gold standard authority on the subject in that day, which was Vattel's Law of Nations.

They didn't even debate the subject, apparently, because the subject wasn't even debatable.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children."

82 posted on 01/12/2016 10:29:38 AM PST by EternalVigilance ('A man without force is without the essential dignity of humanity.' - Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: randita

After you read up on Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and “The Federalist papers” and understand the concept of jurisdiction and why the Constitution is worded the way it is on the eligibility of the President then I will re-engage you in a discussion. This was argued ad nauseum in 2008.

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen for purposes of being eligible to be President.

All you really need to know at this point is that Ted Cruz will not be stopped from running for President nor will he be stopped from being sworn in as President if he should happen to win. Neither will Marco Rubio.


83 posted on 01/12/2016 12:18:11 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: rebuildus
-- The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." --

I submit that they did.

Article IV Section 2 of the constitution tells us who is a citizen of the US.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

To find out who is a natural born citizen of the US, one would look to who was granted citizenship in one or any of the several states, at the time of that person's birth. That would be a person who is born a citizen under the constitution.

What state was Cruz a citizen of, when he was born?

84 posted on 01/12/2016 12:22:25 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rebuildus
My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen.

We don't argue whether "citizen over age 35" is a category of citizenship the way we argue over "citizen natural born."

Most people understand the awkward grammar of the Second Amendment. What if the late weekend (Sept. 8-12, 1787) change from the Committee of Style and Arrangement rushed the grammar in their rewrite of Article II Section 1? What if Article II Section 1 were instead written:

"No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not be natural born, have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would this make a difference?

-PJ

85 posted on 01/12/2016 12:28:12 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rebuildus
The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate

Thank you for bringing this up in the proper context.

I've already learned more from the thread, thanks again.

86 posted on 01/12/2016 12:45:53 PM PST by MosesKnows (Love Many, Trust Few, and Always Paddle Your Own Canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
What statute make me a US citizen?

None, other than the Constitution makes you a US Citizen.

You are also a "natural born Citizen" but not because of where you were born but rather because of where both your parents were born.

87 posted on 01/12/2016 1:02:15 PM PST by MosesKnows (Love Many, Trust Few, and Always Paddle Your Own Canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
If this is correct it must fit in somewhere.

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. " .....John Jay letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787

88 posted on 01/12/2016 1:08:42 PM PST by MosesKnows (Love Many, Trust Few, and Always Paddle Your Own Canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows; xzins

So what you are saying is that slaves and the children of slaves and Indians cannot be eligible for President.

Both of those groups were excluded from being considered citizens at the time of the drafting of the constitution. Any citizenship conferred in contradiction to the established meaning at the time of the drafting of article II would not be given Natural Born status.

Good thing Obama wasn’t descended from slaves.


89 posted on 01/12/2016 1:23:58 PM PST by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
"The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate"

Thank you for bringing this up in the proper context.

I've already learned more from the thread, thanks again.

Thanks, MosesKnows. I've learned a lot too.

90 posted on 01/12/2016 1:25:45 PM PST by rebuildus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Actually, what’s being said is that anyone must have a father considered a resident, committed to the USA, to have been considered an NBC in that era. That would apply across the board as if slaves hadn’t existed.


91 posted on 01/12/2016 1:44:42 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
You just can' seem to grasp the difference between Natural Law vs. Positive Law.

Educate yourself.

92 posted on 01/12/2016 2:03:15 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
Prior to Jay's letter to George Washington the proposed language for presidential eligibility was "born a Citizen."
93 posted on 01/12/2016 2:15:41 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
You can NOT ACCEPT the United States LEGSAL Definition of "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" !

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives



94 posted on 01/12/2016 5:18:04 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
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.

Since "Natural Law" refers to rights and privileges granted by God and not by virtue of any grant from any government, how can you reconcile the fact that Indians and Slaves were not included in the definition of Natural Born Citizen at the time of the Constitution?

Did God have a problem with slaves and Indians? Since it is claimed that through the Laws of Nature all men are created equal, did God somewhere determine that these specific peoples were not men?

95 posted on 01/12/2016 6:03:25 PM PST by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
In regards to slavery, their condition was an unnatural one created by men not God. Both Indians and Slaves weren't citizens at all. Hard to be a natural born citizen to non-citizen parents.
96 posted on 01/12/2016 8:36:14 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (DEPORT OBOLA VOTERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti
Hard to be a natural born citizen to non-citizen parents.

My point is that citizenship is not a natural law status. It is a creation by statute or decree. Natural Born Citizen therefore cannot relate to a status conferred by Natural Law. In simple parlance, Natural Born Citizen references a person who gets his citizenship by nature of his birth.

97 posted on 01/12/2016 8:44:34 PM PST by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Strawman.


98 posted on 01/13/2016 1:02:12 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
You can cut and paste naturalization laws until you are blue in the face. No naturalization law can create a natural born Citizen.
99 posted on 01/13/2016 1:06:23 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
You have no comprehension of the word "Naturalization", or the laws defining it.
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ? Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

Oh, one more thing: ****************************** WRONG !
It was defined for the United States, BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS !

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

100 posted on 01/13/2016 1:22:44 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson