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

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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

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:

This is important: Thus far there is no third class of citizenship discussed, implied or established within the four corners of the Constitution.

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.

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.

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 Constitutionâ€™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.

Not really well read. Just the dozen or so cases that have been circulating since Obama's qualifications became an issue. I never immersed myself in the issue, I'm doing this more or less on the fly.

The only thing I wanted to close out was your contention about those three paragraphs in Bellei, which cities Wong Kim Ark for a proposition that shouldn't be contentious, unless you want to play pedant or sophist. The Wong Kim Ark cite reduces to something like "The naturalization rule that applies to Bellei isn't found in the 14th amendment."

So, you tell me how to adjust that (if necessary to complete your argument) and read the other two paragraphs for your proposition, "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."

After that, we're done.

-- I will catch up with you as soon as I next encounter you at FR. --

I suggest just replying in this thread, to post 165 where I challenged your contention. That makes a tidy record for reference and our fellow readers.

I don't get many posts to me (shun ping lists), so I think I see all of them. I'll see yours, I'm pretty sure. Anytime you feel like it, no hurry. Next year for all I care. ;-)

Eligibility of a candidate can be challenged on a state by state basis, typically through the state’s board of elections. Cruz has already been challenged for ballot access in New Hampshire and the Secretary of State rejected that challenge. Their rejection of the challenge is instructive. They only cared that prima fascia eligibility was established. They didn’t want to deal with constitutional interpretation. They viewed that as someone else’s job.

And at the federal level, because alternate means exist to “adjudicate” the problem, and those means are part of the political structure, Congress, the electoral college, etc., federal courts are strongly inclined to treat presidential eligibility as a political question and pass that buck to anyone else they can find.

See here for further reading, if you are interested:

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=mlr_fi

Peace,

Just a cursory review shows this about Cruz Sr., not Senator Ted Cruz.

Cruz decided to move to New Orleans to take a new job, which is where he met his second wife, Eleanor Darragh, a computer programmer from Delaware, who was also working for an oil company. They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz. They weren’t in Canada long, choosing to move to Houston, where they continued to work for oil companies. He became a Canadian citizen while working there, he says, but it never felt like home. Back in Texas, he became a permanent legal resident, and it wasn’t until 2005 that he formally became a U.S. citizen.

-- Cruz was not naturalized correct? --

Change your definition of naturalize. I'll try to help. To naturalize it to take a non-citizen and turn him into a citizen by any means at all. This is done by Act of Congress.

Cruz was naturalized automatically. Congress has passed some laws that say "if you are born 'this way', you are a citizen-at-birth. Period." Everybody born in the Virgin Islands, to legal residents of the Virgin Islands, is a US citizen at birth by operation of an act of Congress. This rule does not require the parents to be citizens of the US. If two foreigners are living in the Virgin Islands, and they have a baby, the baby is a citizen of the US at birth. Automatic.

Congress can naturalize anybody or any group it wants to, on any or no conditions. It's power is plenary, unlimited. Well, it can give, but it can't take away.

Congress can also require a person to "check in," or be admitted as part of a quota, or take a test (or not), an oath (or not), renounce citizenship elsewhere (or not). Again, Congress can make whatever rules here that it wants to.

The popular view of "naturalized" follows this set of laws, the ones that have making an application, getting approved, waiting, taking a test, renouncing past allegiance, and taking an oath. But Congress could do away with all that pomp and circumstance and still confer citizenship. It isn't the pomp and circumstance that confers citizenship, it is the act of congress that does.

The only way Cruz is a citizen is by act of Congress. Take the act away, he's Canadian through and through.

Spread it around. I'm geting weary, and will soon go mute on the subject.

My pleasure. I think its good, important, maybe necessary for the people to have a proper understanding of "how things work," and this issue has a misinformation to information ratio of about 100 to 1.

My practice here, believe it or not, is sparse posting with extended periods of absence. I usually read, but just as a voyeur. To much stupidity goes on here. Sometimes sad, often funny, usually wrong, reliably entertaining.

I pop up when an issue catches my fancy. Cruz eligibility and Waco Biker Shootout are the only two subjects I play around in.

And even then, my style is to study (outside references)/talk (here) in order to improve my grasp on reality. I learn better that way, and other people benefit. Once I've got it sussed out in my mind (right or wrong), I stop posting. Said my piece, back to voyeur.

So, if I make a post that is useful, others have to spread it around. I'm content to lets it sit where I left it.

Thanks I gave it a try with a search of FR, and FR came back with “Nothing matched your criteria.”

I tried a search engine, one of the results was:

Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

Last revised: June 5, 2009

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2275574/posts

Is this the FR post you had in mind? If so, I tried the link in the article, and it only took me to the current FAM we’re already quoting. I’m guessing you had another link in mind, or the early version/s of the FAM are in one of the many posts?

I finally found a back way into an archived copy of the Department of State website/s for the period 1997-2000 not on the Internet Archive which has working links, but I found no links for the FAM. You have to go through the ERC to get there. See:

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/index.html

I did find the FAM on a 2001 snapshot of the State website on the Internet Archive (WayBackMachine). The wording of the paragraphs we have been discussing have changed, but not so much substantively. See:

https://web.archive.org/web/20011203045609/http://www.foia.state.gov/masterdocs/07fam/07m1130.pdf

What I really want is the FAM equivalent for 1970-1971 and back to the beginning.

In regard to the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission it is true that they’re concerned with “dotted i’s and crossed t’s” on the paperwork and that’s it. The statutes regarding the Commission state that it’s decisions are final and not reviewable. The New Hampshire Supreme Court sees it differently. In a case involving the Ballot Law Commission the New Hampshire Supreme Court said “Even assuming the absence of a statutory right of appeal, this court cannot be divested of its power to correct errors of law and other abuses by writ of certiorari... “ Malcolm Tink Taylor v. Ballot Law Commission, 118 N.H. 671 (1978), accessed at http://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/1978/78-241-0.html

In regard to eligibility being a political question, for reasons previously stated that just ridiculous. Courts may be “disinclined” to handle a case nevertheless it is their duty. The role of Congress is ministerial, they count electors’ votes. Only in a special circumstance may they exercise any other power (Amend. 12). In no circumstance do they possess authority to determine who is and who is not eligible for the Presidency. Electors vote. In no circumstance do they possess authority to determine who is and who is not eligible for the Presidency.

The campaign claims Darragh went to Canada in 1967. When did Rafael go to Canada? When did he become a Can. cit.

According to your post they married and then went to Canada. For sake of discussion let’s say Rafael also went in 1967. The earliest he could have become a Can. cit. would have been 1972. He left Canada in 1973. Become a citizen and then leave? (Darragh and “Ted” returned in 1974). Why would the father become a Canadian citizen and not the mother?

My only point is there should be no murkiness, yet there is, and it’s laughed off. Meanwhile he continues to make ludicrous assertions.

You may find it ridiculous. I find it a practical reality. To undo the current evolution of the political question doctrine, you would need to force the issue, perhaps an Article 5 amendment. But Cruz has virtually no chance of being disqualified under the present process. And he shouldn’t be. He’s not the foreign threat the framers of the Constitution were concerned about. No one born and raised American was the target of the NBC clause. That’s what is truly ridiculous.

Peace,

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized

either by 

    treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, 

or by 

    authority of congress, exercised 
	
    either by 
	
        declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, 
	
    or by 

        enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703

“I would argue and I have argued that there is nothing in the statutes dealing with nationality that acts to amend or alter the plain words of the Constitution.”

There is so the moment you try to act to claim a statute can govern who is and is not a natural born citizen. The Constitution has no authority to make or unmake a person a natural born citizen. Only God’s nature can do so, just as the right of free speech, and the right of self defense are natural and inherent rights that a person is born with and which the Bill of Rights cannot grant, only protect and defend. This is why the naturalization of persons as naturalized citizens is what is known as a legal fiction. Since the Constitution has no power to make or unmake a natural born citizen, the only power granted to Congress was the power to “establish an uniform Rule of naturalization that grants an alien some but not all of the rights of an actual citizen, whether the alien is automatically naturalized at birth or personally naturalized after birth.

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.