The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood

Catholic University Law Review ^ | 2015 | Mary Brigid McManamon

[Yashcheritsiy]

The concluding statement in the article:

"The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a ‘natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United States?” The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion: aside from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the answer is “no.”"

[prodogs]

i think you stick with the constitution and not with WANTS. if you want to change the requirements then a constitutional amendment is always an option.

As far as Trumps Children are concerned his latest wife became a citizen in 2006 and his son Baron was born in 2006. If the months line up then Baron is a Natural Born Citizen.

Ivana became a citizen in 1988. Donald was born 1977 so not an NBC. Eric and Ivanka were also born before 1988 so therefore they are not NBC.

Last but not least Tiffany trump was born to Marla Maples a US citizen so she is NBC

[prodogs]

Interesting to not that only 2 presidents did not meet the strict requirements of Natural Born Citizen.

Clearly we know about Obama who is disqualified due to his father not being a citizen.

Chester Arthur, although rumored to be born in Canada was born born in the USA. However, his father was a British citizen at time of his birth. However, Chester Arthur lied to the press to cover this (another indication that NBC was sovereign born to 2 US citizens).

Good article about Chester Arthur here. -> https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

[itsahoot]

but this is going nowhere, is getting old, and makes us look stupid.

I remember well that this was the same argument used right here on FreeRepublic. concerning the NBC status on Obama.

Thinking the courts won't touch this is insane, of course they will if it puts their choice in the presidency.

[bushpilot2]

Both parents must be citizens of s state to pass citizenship in the 1790. Naturalization Act.

[WhiskeyX]

“McCain doesn’t belong with the others in any way shape or form.”

Dead wrong, because John McCain acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization.

“As much as I despise him as a person and as a politician, both of his parents are citizens and he was born in the Canal Zone on what was at that time American soil.”

Wrong again. Yes, both of his parents were U.S. citizens. No, he was not born in the Panama Canal Zone. No, the Panama Canal Zone was not included within the Organic and Incorporated territories of the United States jurisdiction as determined by the U.S. Supreme court in the Slaughterhouse cases and other case law required to qualify for any form of U.S. citizenship. John McCain was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama, just on the other side of the border and away from the Panama Canal Zone. Nonetheless, it makes no difference whether John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, Germany, Japan, or any other location outside the jurisdiction of the states and incorporated territories of the United States; any such child born abroad in those locations, including the Panama Canal Zone, can acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth or after birth.

“He was never eligible for Panamanian citizenship, only American citizenship.”

Whether or not McCain was eligible for Panamanian citizenship is not relevant. In either case McCain was eligible to acquire U.S. citizenship by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and naturalization Act for naturalization at birth in Panama due to his parents being U.S. citizens.

“Attempting to leave out the U.S. territorial nature of the Canal Zone is dishonest.”

No, what is dishonest if your false accusation. I did not leave out the Panama Canal Zone, because I have repeatedly and clearly stated on countless occasions that McCain was not born in the Panama Canal Zone; he was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama; and it makes no difference whether he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, or any other place abroad due to U.S. citizenship being available to such a child born abroad in any of those places except by naturalization at birth or after birth. The Panama Canal Zone is not relevant, because McCain was not born in the Panama Canal Zone. Even if McCain had been born in the Panama Canal Zone, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the Slaughterhouse cases the Panama Canal Zone is not included as a part of the organic United States and its incorporated territories. Instead, the Panama Canal Zone was an outlying territory and not an organic territory of the United States.

[Gil4]

My childhood friend who was born in Germany (dad was USAF) was told he was not eligible to be President because of the circumstances of his birth. Citizen in every other way.

I'm guessing your friend misunderstood the law. The last two of our six are in the same situation, and the only things keeping them from being eligible is age. And temperament - #5 is too goofy and #6 would really prefer to be dictator instead. But they are absolutely NBC.

[Gil4]

Natural Born Citizens are determined by Natural Law, no law made by Man can address it. The Foundation of Natural Law is self-evidence. As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Self-evidence dictates that a child born to US citizens on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen of the US.

From the many discussions here on FR, it is self-evident that your definition isn't self-evident.

[GBA]

McCain was not born in the Panama Canal Zone; he was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama;

If confession is good for the soul, I'd like to give it a try regarding Juan McShame, my former Senator.

A vote for McCain, Vietnam POW, War Hero, was among the first votes I cast, so I carry some of the blame for all he's done. Youth and ignorance are no excuse, but that's all I've got.

When I finally stumbled into sanity about him and the GOPe, I vowed I would never vote for him again and I meant it. I can't stand that guy. Plus, since I'd moved across country, I didn't see how I'd ever break that vow.

The "Kenyan-born Senator" from Illinois, Barry obama, turned the tables on me and my vow and suddenly all I had was my vote to keep the usurper out of the White House.

Palin was the honey that made my bitter vow-breaking vote for McCain easier to swallow.

But...only made possible because McCain had been born on US territory in Panama...or so I was told...and I believed it without checking it out.

So when it comes to the Natural Born Citizen issue, I'm a repentant sinner reformed and you know how they are.

Worse, in my case, I knew better and I did it anyway, rationalizing how voting for a "lesser" evil is really a greater good and how doing a wrong would make it right.

So much for sanity. By voting McCain to keep obama out of the WH, I got played, I broke my vow to myself and the oaths I'd pledged and I became a hypocrite, all at the same time.

And that's bad. Not as bad as being Cam Newton in a post-Super Bowl interview, but definitely bad.

Now here we are with Cruz 2016, it's like deja vu all over again, but this time I'm watching from my now much more humbled point of view, instead of being played as a repeat offender.

None for me, thanks. I quit. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt, still have the rash.

[Maelstrom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Natural+Law

Natural Law

The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved.

---

So, do you recognize “Natural Law” within the Constitution of the United States of America?

Do you recognize that a child born within the borders of the US of US citizens is a Natural Born Citizen?

---

That should be the end of it. I know it won’t be, but it SHOULD be. What we have today are an enormous number of people no longer capable of cognizant reasoning.

These people will get the government they deserve, and it will commit genocide.

[Gil4]

So, do you recognize "Natural Law" within the Constitution of the United States of America?

Certainly, within the structure of the judiciary and within the Bill of Rights, the framers adopted aspects of Natural Law. That doesn't mean they also intended to adopt all aspects of every competing theory of Natural Law. It is not a unified body of thought, and it's just not capable of answering most detailed questions. Once you get beyond "murder is wrong", "stealing is wrong", and "you can't be a judge in a case in which you have a vested interest", its usefulness is pretty limited.

Do you recognize that a child born within the borders of the US of US citizens is a Natural Born Citizen?

Maybe in common law, definitely in written law, but under which theory of natural law do you see it?

[Maelstrom]

No, it isn’t in written law, because it is based on self-evidence.

That’s why so many people are whining. “Why isn’t this self-evident definition in written law?” The answer is as simple as it is telling. Natural Law, as in my post, cannot be trumped by man’s law, common law, or any other written law.

[Gil4]

There certainly are portions of natural law that have been incorporated into written law. I just don’t see how a good definition of NBC could be derived from any of the theories of Natural Law.

The only self-evident definition I can see is citizen at birth. I think it’s also self-evident that a free people has the right to determine (via their elected leaders) the details of who is granted citizenship at birth.

[Maelstrom]

Are you sure you understand WHY the President of the US and ONLY the President of the US was restricted to Natural Born Citizens?

[Gil4]

Sure, but it has nothing to do with Natural Law. I don’t see the definition in Natural Law and I don’t see the requirement to restrict the President (and only the President) in Natural law. Citing Natural law in the NBC debate is the equivalent of “my opinion is obvious to me, therefore everyone should agree.”

Whose theory of Natural Law even speaks to citizenship in enough detail determine a distinction? Locke based much of his on the Bible, so maybe he did use Acts 22:27-29 to distinguish between those born citizens (the Apostle Paul was born a Roman) and those who acquired citizenship (the tribune with whom he spoke had purchased his citizenship.)

Again, the only thing I can see from Natural Law is NBC = citizen at birth. I have discussed the issue with many here on FR, and the anti-Cruz birthers (not meant as a pejorative; just convenient shorthand) are for the most part long on self-assured proclamations and short on substantiating evidence. (There is one who has posted some interesting court opinions that I still want to read through, but at first glance it looked like a case of selective editing and out-of-context quoting.) I really think that you are barking up the wrong tree with Natural Law and if there is evidence out there, it’s more likely to be found in common law or legal precedent.

[Maelstrom]

Odd...Natural Born citizen isn’t mentioned in any legal text, referenced in some very old texts, but not defined, even there as law. It is even capitalized for you to understand where to find that Natural Born citizen.

Yet you think it isn’t a Natural Law definition.

Whose theory? Natural Law doesn’t have multiple theories. It has obviousness.

There is only one form of citizenship that is OBVIOUSLY a Natural Born citizen. You claim to recognize the purpose of the requirement, but then immediately violate that recognition by, with your own viewpoint, allowing citizens with multiple obligations and loyalties, and even those without any obligation or loyalty to the US, at their births.

So...what are you *actually* thinking?

Please note, I support Cruz. I support him on the basis that the Constitution has *already* been overthrown, but he might be willing to restore it.

[Gil4]

I thought the obvious reason was to prevent those without any ties or loyalty from birth from seeking to become citizens in order ultimately undermine the nation.

This was from the link to the Natural Law Wikipedia page that you posted the link to:

The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through its history. There are a number of different theories of natural law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. This article deals with its usages separately rather than attempt to unify them into a single theory.

The fact that NBC has the word Natural in it doesn't necessarily link it to Natural Law.

There is only one form of citizenship that is OBVIOUSLY a Natural Born citizen.

It is not obvious, however, that it is the only form of citizenship that is Natural Born. In fact, the idea that it the only form is a fairly obscure minority view. The more obvious view is that NBC and citizen at birth are synonymous.

Please note, I support Cruz. I support him on the basis that the Constitution has *already* been overthrown, but he might be willing to restore it.

I agree that there is the possibility that the Constitution has already been overthrown because of the lack of curiosity about the location of Obama's birth, but if that was a real birth certificate and he was really born in Hawaii (very doubtful and somewhat doubtful), then he's eligible. There was certainly no urgency to take care that it was not violated.

[Maelstrom]

That fact that it was capitalized does link it to Natural Law in combination with the “obvious reason”.

Now, if that is actually the “obvious reason”, why would you expand that definition to include people whom obviously have ties are loyalties to other nations, without necessarily any meaningful ties to this country? (vis-à-vis anchor babies)

Obama’s problems go deeper than you realize. We don’t actually have proof he’s related to his grandparents or his mother, and evidence suggesting otherwise.

[Gil4]

Obama’s problems go deeper than you realize. We don’t actually have proof he’s related to ... his mother

I've heard rumors that his father might be Frank Marshall Davis, but dismissed it as malicious, idle speculation. What is this about his mother?

[Maelstrom]

http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/09/smoking-gun-obama-eligibility-case-stanley-ann-dunhams-passport/

Nobody has any clue about who this guy’s mother OR father might have been.

Just a story...without any corroborating facts...and documentation demonstrating there aren’t any such facts when here *had* to be.

Utterly irrelevant.

A Natural Born Citizen...capital N, capital B, can only derive from one source when there is no legal definition that can be applied:

Natural Law.

You keep saying “citizen at birth” as if it means something. Congress has the power to Naturalize citizens. It doesn’t have the power to make anyone who is already a citizen into a citizen.

Because it has the power to Naturalize Citizens, it CAN and DOES Naturalize Citizens at birth, obviating them from the Naturalization processes available.

[Daffy]

“If Congress had never passed an Immigration bill, then [English] common law would be relevant.”

As pertains to the Constitution, no, it wouldn’t.

“But Congress did pass Immigration laws [plural], which included definitions [plural] of ‘Natural Born Citizen’.”

This suggests there are multiple definitions for NBC. How confusing.