A Simple-Minded Reading of the Constitution on the Subject of Citizenship

vanity | 1/16/2016 | Self

[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.

[BuckeyeTexan]

http://constitution.i2i.org/2010/12/17/does-the-constitution-really-give-congress-power-over-immigration/

[BuckeyeTexan]

I get you, but what documentation is Cruz refusing to release? Genuine question not a gotcha question.

[South Dakota]

Disagee.
Goldwater was born on a US protectorate.
Agree about Romney Ando mclaim

[Ray76]

When did the father become a Can. cit.

When and where did they marry.

Answering these questions would help secure his claim to his Senate seat.

He presents as a person of high integrity yet there is murkiness that he does nothing to dispel.

[Cboldt]

-- then you must know that Congress does have the inherent power to define who is naturally a citizen when such an individual is not explicitly covered by the 14th Amendment --

I submit that you are reading something in, that is not there. In fact, you are reading something for the opposite of what it says.

If this court thought this statute conferred NBC, then this case would flat not exist.

First paragraph of your blockquote: Citizenship to a person born abroad of citizen parent is a subject regulated by Congress under rules of naturalization

Then, I think this is your "In doing so the Court said in Rogers v. Bellei"

Second full paragraph: Citizenship under the constitution is three factors, birth IN the US, naturalization IN the US, and subject to the jurisdiction. [The case hinges on construction of the word "in" emphasized above. Bellei doesn't fit any of those, because he wasn't naturalized IN the US]. Congress can assert it's power to naturalize, to include those not naturalized IN the US, but those citizens will not be 14th amendment citizens.

Third full paragraph: The court recognizes the power of Congress to confer citizenship on person born abroad. But if it wants, it can pass zero laws conferring citizenship to persons born abroad. All people born abroad are aliens. Congress can confer citizenship [implied, pursuant to it's power to naturalize], and it can pass citizenship by blood if it wants to.

I'm open to your paraphrase, that delivers the result you claim is in there. It's only three short paragraphs.

[Cboldt]

You can keep pushing that rope, but SCOTUS is going to have to eat massive amounts of crow, and arrogantly take for itself what it expressly said belonged to Congress when it handed down Rogers v. Bellei.

And that would be SCOTUS reading crap into the constitution that isn't there, a task that it seems pretty amenable to doing, and hey, after finding homo marriage, etc. in there, it would be hard to beclown itself much worse than it already has. It's a thoroughly discredited institution already, by its own fault.

[Cboldt]

Think about what you are arguing — Vattel should be superior to the Constitution. Didn’t you take the opposite view a few days ago? I don’t follow your arguments, that’s an innocent question.

[Springfield Reformer]

I’m a lawyer, and I have litigated candidate eligibility matters, and running out and quickly getting a declaratory judgment is not how this works. Almost no one has standing to bring a claim, though many might try. SCOTUS will leave this to Congress and the political process. But even if it disregarded the safe haven of the political question doctrine and took up the case, I firmly believe it would decide in favor of Cruz, because the language of the Constitution allows recognizing Cruz as natural born, and there is no legally binding authority that would prevent such a conclusion, despite the bloviating here and elsewhere to the contrary.

Bottom line, this whole exercise is a diversion to get Cruz off his conservative message and derailed in Iowa, because Trump fears losing Iowa. That right there is the whole thing in a nutshell. Pure politics. Sad to see so many on our side confused by it.

Peace,

SR

[Ray76]

Eligibility is not a political issue, is a question of law & fact. The facts regarding an individual are discoverable. For example, a persons age and residency are discoverable facts, as is their citizenship status. Questions regarding eligibility are within the exclusive authority of the Judiciary. Conversely, if it were a political issue, the eligibility mandate of Article II would be nugatory.

[jpsb]

An natural born citizens needs no laws to make them a citizen, they are by the nature of their birth a citizen. Born on soil to two citizen parents. No law make such a child a citizen he/she just is.

Until the Naturalization Act of 1934 Cruz would not have even been considered a citizen of the USA. The son of a Cuban, born in Canada to an American mother is not a natural born citizen of the USA. Not if we are going with the original intent of the founders.

Now if we have a living constitution well then sure Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen because well he really really wants to be. He and few other select smart people get to tell us that the rules are and we better accept it.

A living constitution means no constitution.

Did you know that today our national guard is the nations' militia? You know that part about a where the founders said "a well regulated militia" Yup and of course the national guard needs to be armed but very day citizens like you and me? Not so much. And oh did you know that two men have a constitutional right to be married in the church of their choice. And of course the constitution protects the right of a women to murder her baby in the womb. Etc, etc, etc.

Screwing with the meaning of our constitution will not end well for us.

[EternalVigilance]

“The Congress shall have Power To ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”

— Article One, Section 8, U.S. Constitution

[Cboldt]

Yeah, you said this in the OP. Seems like a week ago, but what, it's been a few hours maybe.

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

And then @ 157, you reverse, and decide to invoke extraneous references, for the purpose of reversing the outcome you didn't like when you used the constitution.

And even then, (man, this rope is getting harder to push) you have to overlay equal rights on top of jus sanguinas on top of torturing Vattel, and haven't defined the minimum extent of jus soli that keeps the nation together, and oh my God the system works fine the way we have it now thank you very much. Congress can hand out citizenship like lollipops, at birth, to everybody. That is constitutional. The only power it lacks, is the power to expand the pool of president candidates.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I do, very much, want to continue this discussion. (I have been where you are on the issue and am totally open to all interpretations.) I can’t continue it tonight though. More tomorrow?

[EternalVigilance]

In the end, all constitutional questions are political questions, by virtue of the fact that the Constitution belongs to We the People, not to the judges or politicians.

[Ray76]

So popular acclaim is all that’s need to be president? Is that what you are advocating?

[EternalVigilance]

Nope. Not at all. I’m just saying, that even if some judge rules against the laws of nature and nature’s God and the Constitution, We the People have the right, and the power, to tell them to go straight to hell.

This is one of the saddest things about this whole episode. The very people who should be pushing the country back towards our natural law foundations and back to strict adherence to the supreme law of our land, conservatives, are, because of campaign partisanship, doing the exact opposite.

[WhiskeyX]

“FWIW, those manuals have no force of law.”

Of course, but they do have some probative value to ascertain the interpretations in use at a point in time. The quote also demonstrates the acknowledgement that the Constitution and its usage are acknowledged to take precedence over anything found in the Foreign Affairs Manual.

[Ray76]

It is sad, no doubt about it. Our situation is appalling.

[Cboldt]

Did you read that paragraph from Vattel? Carefully? It's essentially a rule of law that prevents anchor babies. You can't isolate the last two sentences and make them into a stand-alone rule. The paragraph stands as a unit.

Are you a judge in a court of law, perchance?

[jpsb]

Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state but Arizona was a US territory. US territory soil is US soil. Dido McCain born in the Panama canal zone when the Panama canal zone was US territory. No comment on Romney I do know know his circumstances.