Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
Do you believe the framers knew the difference between Natural Born and Native Born?
Well, Vattel did in 1758.
His work said
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
At any rate, the citizenship framework of old does make sense. It's not easy to get a handle on, like rules of inheritance (legal terms of art in wills) are tricky. About 20% of law students "get it" on the inheritance system. citizenship is easier, but there are still a few pieces to put together, and citizenship also has an inter-generational aspect (jus sanguinas).
It took me awhile to come to what I think is a clear understanding. And once there, it makes perfect sense.
Rearranging the analytical framework results in confusion and error. And there is no shortage of people who operate (sometimes subconsciously) on an "desired outcome determines the rule" basis.
Now if the courts refuse to hear the case(s), as they did with Obama, then he gets a pass and is deemed eligible. However, it also means that the question of what the original intent of "natural born" actually means, remains unresolved.
Had Obama not come forth with an Hawaiian birth certificate, fake as it was, would the courts have remained silent on the subject? I suggest that the would not have. Of course we know that Cruz was not born in the United States. Will this fact compel the courts to take the case? At this point no one knows, which is why the challenges will be forth coming without a doubt. It is not a settled case as Ted Cruz and others currently claim.
I don't think the courts will take the case, and I think they don't have to. The doubt is enough to sink Cruz. There is no need for a definitive answer. If the people have doubts, then the candidate is damaged goods.
Obama's case is different. The anchor baby cases are different. The public more or less accepts that, while not liking it, and the courts are biased to liberally grant rights.
As to "which parent" controls, either. For Cruz, citizenship and residence of the mother matter, and the father is irrelevant. That is a statutory issue, and delivers naturalized citizenship.
At the time of the founding, as you notice, citizenship of a couple tracked citizenship of the father, so one could figure out NBC by either looking at the couple, or at the father.
These days, with the family structure disintegrating, who knows. I think it would take a few hypothetical examples to figure out a "just" rule. Intuitively, I'd look at the parent who raised the child.
What you, I, or Cruz think is irrelevant if the courts do indeed inject themselves.
Well in this case they both raised Ted, so that does not help clarify. Like I said, this case is not settled. Will the courts take it up? No one knows, however, it would not surprise me if they did.
It's irrelevant to the outcome "as a matter of law," I agree with that.
If he's found eligible, some voters will reject the SCOTUS holding, and withhold voting for Cruz. He's damaged to some extent, no matter what.
And if he's ruled eligible, SCOTUS is going to have students of the law looking at the decision as a pivot point, like Wickard v. Filburn is a pivot point. A reversal of the rule stated in every case that came before.
If they took it up and followed precedent, Cruz is naturalized. That is easy to see, to a person who has studied the precedents. It's by far the clearest, easiest case I've ever studied. This is settled law. Against Cruz.
Those who think Cruz is qualified should be asked if they think they know more about the subject than the author of the Fourteenth Amendment.
No I do not see him as damaged goods for sure, but you may be correct about others. However, I believe that is most likely because they support another candidate already anyway.
I know of no precedent. Which one are you referring too?
> His citizenship was acquired at birth. It may or may not be recognized by statute, but statute did not create it.
Why would Congress pass an act to confer an extant status? Moreover, why would Congress, at various points in history, pass acts conferring in the same circumstance differing statuses: “natural born citizen”, “citizen”, not a citizen at all, or citizenship subject to revocation, if the Congressional act was a recognition rather than a grant?
These acts are not an acknowledgement of an extant status but a granting of a status. These acts are naturalization acts.
I summarized it at A Simple-Minded Reading of the Constitution on the Subject of Citizenship: Post 64, and invite corrections to the summary. I've summarized it in numerous other posts on FR, never in exactly the same words (except the blockquotes are exact cut/paste), and in that thread, have been challenged on my application, see post 165, the post it is a reply to, and following. That discussion remains unresolved, awaiting substantive response from BuckeyeTexan.
Yea, sorry. I didn't mean everybody would see him as unqualified. Just that some would, and the fact that some would is the extent of the damage.
It's beyond my power to put my sense in your head. You have complete control of that!
> foreign born American children have not always required what we now think of as naturalization. The most obvious example is the 1790 Naturalization Act.
Note well the title of the 1790 Act “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, the title of the 1795 Act: “An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.” Both are explicitly stated to be naturalization acts, the each confer a status upon persons.
The act in force at the time of birth controls. The status conferred by the act in force in 1970 is “citizen”. The original grant required the child to come to the United States prior to attaining the age of 23 years and remain there for 5 years or the grant of citizenship was revoked.
The foreign born American children have always required naturalization or they were not citizens. To illustrate, a child born to a U.S. citizen mother in 1874 in Oxfordshire, England was not a U.S. citizen. That child is Winston Churchill, he was proclaimed Honorary Citizen of the United States April 9, 1963 (Pub. L. 88-6). The exact same circumstances as Cruz, the foreign-born child of a U.S. citizen mother, yet Churchill was not a citizen. Why? Because there was no statute to make him one.
If they took it up and followed precedent, Cruz is naturalized. That is easy to see, to a person who has studied the precedents. It's by far the clearest, easiest case I've ever studied. This is settled law. Against Cruz."
Agreed. It seems the Court do all they can to avoid the citizenship issue.
I also agree this will probably finish Cruz. It's hard to want a return to constitutional principles and support someone whose candidacy is in direct contradiction.
No, I am first and foremost a Christian. This debate is not worth the spiritual damage it does. Yes, I am well-informed on the subject, relatively speaking. No, I have not reached the zenith of all possible knowledge and am working my way out of the Obama birther nonsense, in which I was wrongly committed to the other side, by following and participating in this conversation. It has been enlightening.
Most enlightening is how when one’s opponent cannot answer a basic question, there arises a presumption of dishonesty. I don’t presume such of you. I assume y’all are doing the best you can, but that you have prior commitments of belief that make it next to impossible for you to consider that the Framers might have intentionally designed this language with some flexibility in meeting their true intent.
Therefore, I understand how it might seem impossible to you that anyone could disagree without being dishonest. But I am being as truthful with you all as I know how to be, and if we were all sitting at a local donut shop you could look me in the eye and see I was telling you the truth.
However, this resort to false personal accusation places us in a position where adult conversation, designed to actually persuade thoughtful persons, becomes impossible, and it devolves into one cultic school of thought against another, each brandishing every weapon they can, rational or otherwise, against those who should be their brothers and sisters at arms against those who would destroy us.
In summary, I have stated my position, and nothing recited by any of you has met the challenge. What else can I do? If any of you claims to be a Christian, I claim to be your brother in Christ, and before God I offer you my friendship and trust, and a willingness to start over. I do not wish for anyone here to come way from this with a lengthened enemies list. That’s not what we’re here for, either as believers or conservatives, and you have my assurance that is not what I will do. The door is always open.
But until such time as it seems worthwhile to reenter, I will be retiring from this discussion. You all know my position. It seems pointless to keep restating it. Meanwhile, I have another writing project which requires my attention.
May God bless each of you,
Peace,
SR
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.