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

vanity | 1/16/2016 | Self

[EternalVigilance]

So, you’re saying that Vattel contradicts his own assertion?

[unlearner]

Sure they do. So I am eagerly awaiting your answer to the million dollar question I posed in post #257.

So you will not support Trump or Cruz because neither meet the qualification of “natural born citizen”, right?

[EternalVigilance]

Obviously you didn’t read the answer that I have already made.

My understanding is that both of Trump’s parents were U.S. citizens at his birth. If I’m wrong about that, please point me to a reliable source to that effect.

[unlearner]

“So, you’re saying that Vattel contradicts his own assertion?”

No I am saying to use basic logic. If B is a subset of A, then all B’s are A’s. However, not all A’s are necessarily B’s.

A person born in a nation’s boundaries to two parents who are both citizens of that nation at the time of the birth is by nature a native or citizen of that nation at birth. If it a self-evident truth.

This does not preclude that others can be citizens of a nation at birth. And Vattel explores what factors effect this. And he explicitly says the laws of the nations in this regard must be followed.

He even further clarifies that parentage is more important than location of birth. He also says the father’s citizenship is conferred to the child, rather than the mother, even though he defines “natural born citizen” (singular) as having “parents” (plural) who are citizens.

There is a difference between clarification and contradiction.
I just find it immensely ironic that you refuse to accept Congress having these factors in its purview and yet fully accept its power to regulate immigration which is not enumerated like issues of citizenship are.

[unlearner]

You are right apparently about Trump’s parents. According to birthers.org Donald’s mom was naturalized four years before he was born. So you are off the hook and can vote for him, and have deprived me of the opportunity to endlessly and mercilessly rib you for your double standard. But I have to admit that you are being consistent when it comes to Trump.

[EternalVigilance]

even though he defines "natural born citizen" (singular) as having "parents" (plural) who are citizens.

I get the feeling that you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with yourself.

Perhaps I should just shut up and let you handle you.

[EternalVigilance]

So you are off the hook and can vote for him

I wouldn't vote for Trump with YOUR ballot, much less my own.

[unlearner]

Sorry. I overlooked that you do not support either Trump or Cruz.

You are among the very few.

For me, I will, like most here, pragmatically support either.

I am doubtful about Cruz having the ability to defend himself against the media in the general, or to get things done if elected due to the fierce opposition to conservatism.

I have strong reservations about Trump’s conservatism. If he partnered with Cruz as VP it would go a long way for me. If he moves left in the general, I don’t think I would support him either.

[unlearner]

Okay. I hate admitting to losing even a point of an argument. But you caught my error. I withdraw that point.

I do find it interesting that you do support the definition of “two parent citizen” requirement though.

You do not have to read very far to see he regards such citizenship to follow the father’s citizenship.

[EternalVigilance]

Apology accepted.

[unlearner]

It’s been fun and educational. I do appreciate your contributions here even if we may not always agree. You are obviously a valued participant on this forum.

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks. I too always appreciate a decent respectful conversation, or even a debate, with anyone who is truly of good will.

Trolls I have no more time for...

:-)

[so_real]

For example, where is the "divided allegiance" language you think would need to be amended? I can't find it.

I don't believe the language requires amending. In the nomenclature and understanding of the common man in the day, the phrase "natural born citizen" was included in the Constitution precisely to preclude those with "divided allegiance", especially to the British Empire, from usurping the highest office in the newly birthed nation. You have a much larger debate to win than this if you choose to ignore all historic precedent leading to that assertion. Good luck. It's not a hill I would choose for battle.

I don't think I have ever heretofore heard of a Constitutional Amendment to correct a 'notion' about an obscure, undefined, and controversial turn of phrase.

I'll provide the Nineteenth Amendment by way of example. Even though races and sexes were reaffirmed as citizens of the United States in the Fourteenth Amendment, the notion of 'citizen' to some did not afford women the privilege of participating in government by way of voting. The Nineteenth Amendment provided clarity to the obscure and controversial notion (at the time) that citizenship afforded women the right to vote.

There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution itself to suggest that 'natural born citizen' means anything more than 'citizen by birth'.

Supporting your position by reasserting your position does not advance your position. The Framers rejected Hamilton's suggestion of "born citizen" and wrote "natural born citizen" instead. There was a purpose, a distinction, made in this. I believe I understand what it was. You believe no distinction exists. We have a genuine issue of material fact. I would like to see it litigated and original intent discerned. Would you?

[so_real]

I believe, my FRiend, Trump's mother was naturalized about four years after Trump's birth. Under the historic doctrine of "partus sequitur patrem", Trump is an NBC as his status would be inherited from his father. But is that doctrine still observed today? Or, with allegiance of the parents now tracked individually post 14th Amendment, does it now require pure allegiance on behalf of both parents to mimic the unity once had as allegiance of the family once followed the father? Or, as some have asserted, has it been weakened to the point where any allegiance on either side is good enough? Or, as others have asserted, has the allegiance of the parents been abandoned altogether and birth on U.S. soil is sufficient. I believe that is the heart of the legal question. And, I think you and I agree, Rep. John Bingham answered the question of "original intent" for us already.

[so_real]

Mea culpa ... I remembered the years backward : 1942 and 1946. It does appear Trump's mother was naturalized before his birth.

[EternalVigilance]

Yup.

[John Valentine]

I would like to see it litigated and original intent discerned. Would you?

It needs to be settled. I do not believe that resort need be made outside the four corners of the document to do so.

For me, this is not an originalist issue.

Here's the problem: it won't be. There is literally ZERO chance that this will be taken up by any Federal Court and adjudicated. The Court will say that this is a political question to be resolved by Congress, not the court system.

Meanwhile, I will not be dissuaded from supporting in any way I can the candidate who I believe to be the best in terms of intelligence, character, commitment to Constitutional principle, and incorruptibility. We'll see where this goes.

[SuzyQue]

Bookmark

[Bob434]

[[I think the courts will dodge it. No matter which way they rule, it hurts them. I would be shocked if they took it.]]

I think they’re going to have to take it up because, according to what I read yesterday here on FR, someone running for president in NH has lodged a lawsuit against Ted, forcing the issue into the courts, and apparently they are able to do this because as someone running for office and filing the lawsuit, it nullifies the ‘no standing’ issue that Obama was able to use to have the case thrown out many times when folks tried to bring lawsuits against him for citizenship-ness

unless I’m misunderstanding what the post on FR meant-

[Cboldt]

-- I think they're going to have to take it up because, according to what I read yesterday here on FR, someone running for president in NH has lodged a lawsuit against Ted, forcing the issue into the courts, and apparently they are able to do this because as someone running for office and filing the lawsuit, it nullifies the `no standing' issue --

That's correct. Opponents in an election contest can sue each other on qualifications basis. The opponents have standing.

I still think the court will do some mumbo-jumbo and dodge it. Presidential elections are "odd" to say the least, and courts are chicken-shit operations. I think the court will refuse to hear the case on the merits, and there is no recourse to that. Courts are the last word on their own conduct.

The ways they dodge are "it's up to congress to evaluation the qualifications", and "the issue isn't ripe because you haven't lost yet."