Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
I shall show that the Constitution contemplates two types of Citizen: those that acquire their citizenship at birth and those who acquire their Citizenship at a later time. The first are referred to in the Constitution as 'natural born' and the second is a class of citizen not specifically named but implied and are those we consider 'naturalized citizens.'
The word 'citizen' including derivative forms appears only eleven times in the Constitution. We shall look at each instance and derive what is possible from each usage and instance. By the end, I hope to have exhaustively shown that within the 'four corners' of the Constitution, two and only two types or classes of citizen are identified or implied: citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization. There is no third subset of citizen to be differentiated from among the two classes of citizen identified or implied in the Constitution.
Instance 1: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States House of Representative. They are:
1. Age of at least 25 years
2. A citizen of the United States for at least 7 years
3. An inhabitant of the state from which elected
Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.
This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.
Instance 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States Senate. They are:
1. Age of at least 30 years
2. A citizen of the United States for at least 9 years
3. An inhabitant of the state from which elected
Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement again requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.
This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.
Instances 3 and 4: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility for service as President of the Untied States. They are:
1. Age of at least 35 years
2. A natural born citizen of the United States or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
3. Resident within the United States for at least 14 years
Notice here that a different citizenship requirement is established: in fact, two alternative requirements. We need not concern ourselves with the second, which concerns the Framer's generation and has no application to anyone alive today.
As to the first we see that the citizenship requirement has no specific requirement for its duration. Instead, it refers to a citizenship deriving from the circumstances of birth.
This is a distinctly different citizenship requirement than those for the House of Representatives or Senate. The citizenship requirements for the House of Representatives and Senate could encompass the same class of citizen contemplated by the requirement for Presidential eligibility. We do know that historically individuals have served both in the Senate and as President so the requirements cannot be mutually exclusive.
Logically, we can conclude that the citizenship requirement for eligibility to the Presidency would also be sufficient to establish eligibility for the House of Representatives and Senate.
Thus far there are two classes of citizen established or implied by the language of the Constitution: (1) a class of citizen (natural born) which is derived by the circumstances of birth and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for service as President, and (2) another class of citizenship which does not depend on the circumstances of birth and can be acquired many years after the birth of an individual and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, but not for service as President.
For clarity, going forward I will refer to these two classes of citizen as follows:
As to the first class, these are 'natural born'
As to the second class, these are 'naturalized'
This is important: Thus far there is no third class of citizenship discussed, implied or established within the four corners of the Constitution.
Instances 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Article III, Section 2, Clause 5
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States,— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This clause does not establish a further class of citizen. As for the first four instances mentioned in this clause, these by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is, those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized. As for the fifth instance, this refers to a citizens of a foreign State and therefore not relevant to this discussion.
This is important: Nothing in this clause references or establishes a third class of citizenship.
Instances 10 and 11: Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This clause, too, does not establish a further class of citizen, and the two instances mentioned in this clause, by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized.
Thus we have exhausted every mention of the word citizen and all its derivative forms, plural, etc. that are found in the Constitution of the United States.
It is demonstrated that there are only two classes of citizen established within the Articles, Sections and Clauses of the Constitution.
These classes are:
1. natural born
2. naturalized
All citizens must belong to one of these classes. If a citizen is not naturalized only one other possibility has been identified: natural born. All citizens are either naturalized or natural born; there is not other possibility.
Obviously, this analysis will categorize any citizen acquiring citizenship by birth as natural born. Some argue that only SOME citizens acquiring citizenship by birth are to be classed as natural born. They claim that other citizens acquiring citizenship by the circumstances of their birth are a subset of naturalized citizen.
But, all such arguments must be based on suppositions, presumptions and hypotheses that are extraneous to the Constitution itself, for as I have exhaustively shown, the Constitution itself creates no such category of citizen.
I also submit that unless the Constitution is inherently impossible of interpretation or understanding based on its own terms, such extraneous references must not be permitted, or may sometimes be permitted with little weight as set against the Constitution’s own clear provisions.
I submit that all the fevered and tortured bending and twisting, and all the references to this and that while perhaps entertaining are essentially nothing more than a diversion.
The Constitution itself is clear. It establishes two classes of citizen; those that have become citizens through the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens by birth, that is the natural born citizens.
There is no third class of citizen.
By the way, it should be noted that that entry in the Foreign Affairs manual is no mere error. It is an intentional deception.
That's the fallacy, in a nutshell.
There are several statutes that convert a person who otherwise would not be a citizen, into a citizen, merely by the circumstances of birth meeting the conditions stated in the statute.
In order to be naturalized, one's citizenship must depend on an Act of Congress. That's awkward phrasing, but that's a form of definition for "naturalize."
“Those born outside the US to US citizen parents and thus inherit the parent’s citizenship.
Those born not-a-US-citizen but naturalized into citizenship.”
Those are both parts of the one form of acquiring citizenship by naturalization. One is naturalized at birth, while the other was naturalized after birth. They are both governed by statutes for the naturalization of alien born persons using the power granted by the Constitution to the Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. The principle for naturalizing the alien born at birth was established in Anglo-American law by the Naturalization Act of 1541 by which Parliament grated the alien born child of an English father to acquire the status of an English subject at birth. Sir Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 described this naturalization at birth as the practice of a subject made (datus) rather than a subject-born (natus).
George Romney was born of 2 citizen parents in Mexico. He would have been naturalized at birth (by statute) just as Cruz was.
He then returned to the US before reaching the age of his majority and married a natural born citizen.
Naturalized citizens have natural born children when they're born in the US, so of course Romney was eligible.
The cases are not the same, and I'm not a Romney fan either.
That is false, and your entire argument rises or falls on this point.
You fabricated this point out of thin air, and you will not let it go.
citizen by birth is not equivalent to citizen at birth
And the first rule of writing a contract what every law student is taught is ????? ..... “say what you mean”. The fact remains the constitution does not say the president must be native born. George Tucker may have used both terms interchangeably... and discussed the difference between a monarch and a democratic republic.... and who knows how many of the framers held the same opinion he held.... but the constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. That’s just my opinion... obviously.
Actually the framers didn’t think they needed to define “Natural Born Citizen/Sovereign”. Of the 3 books George Washington stole from the NY Public Library, one was The Laws of Nations” Written by a Frenchman, the upshot understanding of the time of the writing of the constitution was that Sovereignty/Citizenship flowed only by the nationality of the father, regardless of place of birth. Thus a natural born British dad, who became a French citizen, could have a natural born French child in Canada. Its all about allegiance. The intent of the framers was to prevent a president with duel allegiances from becoming president. I’ve written a few treatise here on the subject with English translations from the French since I don’t read French.
Congress can pass laws to add clarity, specificity and certainty under the authority of the Constitution, and do so regularly. In fact, you can consider this as the entire US Code.
Wrong, and simple reasoning proves it. When the Founders wrote the Constitution they had an understanding of the definitions of each word that they used. If natural born was to be defined by a future Congress they would have indicated as much. They didn’t, and this proves that natural born had a singular meaning, not subject to the whims of future legislative bodies. Also, if it had no special meaning there is no reason to say anything other than “citizen at birth.” It is self-evident that Congress can instantly naturalize anyone born anywhere by statute. This is why Cruz was a citizen at birth, Congress passed a law granted citizenship to the children born abroad to U.S. Citizens. This is not a special circumstance guaranteeing a fondness for America, it is an allowance for naturalization in utero. Statutes are required, therefore there is nothing “natural” about the citizen.
Agreed that it was intentional and not in error. Intended deception? All intentions are questionable where Obama is concerned.
What I know for certain is that they felt the need to clarify it in writing because we forced them to do so. The eligibility discussions at FR over the years have forced many reactions.
Where online is his birth certificate posted ?
Wrong. The Constitution was written in plain English. It is accessible to anyone. U.S. Code in no way interprets the Constitution, if anything it typically debases it. Your assessment has zero validity. I’m trying to be nice...
Wrong. The Constitution was written in plain English. It is accessible to anyone. U.S. Code in no way interprets the Constitution, if anything it typically debases it. Your assessment has zero validity. I’m trying to be nice...
Absolutely. Vattel was all about jus sanguinis, and so were the Framers.
This has been totally mangled by 19th century jurisprudence, resulting finally in the phenomenon known as anchor babies.
It’s a shame and some of the posters on this thread who are appalled by anchor babies will defend with all their strength the jus solis based jurisprudence that created them. Some, even to the point of reading things into the Constitution that just aren’t there.
Look I like Ted Cruz a lot, but there are real legitimate issues surrounding Ted Cruz on “natural born” status. His mother and father both became citizens of Canada before Ted was born. So if anything Ted is a natural born Canadian citizen. His mother and father moved back to the United States when he was four years old. His father remained a Canadian citizen until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a US Naturalized citizen in 2005. So the entire family were considered, and considered themselves, to be Canadian citizens. That means Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen residing in the United States up to the age of 35. So who really is confused, and employing twisted, warped and bent thinking?
Of whom do you speak?
> His mother and father both became citizens
This has not been established.
The father says he became a Canadian citizen, when don’t know when this occurred. The campaign claims the mother did not become a Canadian citizen & says it would be impossible, which is not true. Why would the father become a Can. cit. and the mother not? Why would the campaign lie about the possibility of her becoming a 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.