Posted on 02/07/2016 10:07:51 AM PST by 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.â€"
(Excerpt) Read more at papers.ssrn.com ...
I was at a hearing on a motion one time and one of the attorneys arguing was a state rep who had drafted the statute. The attorney tried telling the judge about his intent. The judge cut him off and said “I don’t care what you intended, I’m going to go by what the statute actually says.” I haven’t argued legislative intent since.
As I have said multiple times, this simple misconstruction of natural born is new, and none of it makes sense when compared against the REASON for having a natural born restriction in the Constitution.
So, at the time of the writing of the constitution, no one in the united states was eligible to be president, including, George Washington.
Omg... Have you ever read the Constitution?
/// Correct. Except that in the case of Cruz, his father resided in the US but I believe never became a US citizen. So the early law/concept boils down to the question of whether one citizen parent, in Cruz's case the mother, I'd enough to pass on NBC, or if both parents are necessary. Or, in the case of the time of the founders, it could only be passed on by a citizen father and not a citizen mother.
If you are willing to accept that a 1790 law can set the conditions under which one is considered a NBC, then the 1952 law that was in effect at the time Cruz was born also can. The real question is whether NBC has an inherent definition other than "citizen at birth in accordance with the laws of the land." I have not seen anything convincing on the inherent definition, so I will assume congress has the leeway to pass the first order of business in naturalization law - identifying ho has no need of naturalization.
The Annals of Congress are also silent on the issue. You can read for yourself the discussion about the bill at pages 1004-1007, 1021-23, 1026-27, 1028-30, 1030-32, 1033-40, 1041-58, 1060, 1061, 1064-66:
Proceedings and Debates of the 3rd Congress
There is a comment that the select committee kept "whatever was necessary from the Old Law"
If the 3rd Congress was fixing a mistake by the 1st Congress, they apparently felt no need for discussion about it, and Jefferson didn't even give it a thought in his letter to Jefferson. On the other hand, they may simply have felt that there was no need to discuss who was considered natural born in a law about the naturalization process.
My brother was born when My father was naval officer stationed in Istanbul. It was generally accepted by EVERYONE that my brother was not eligible to become president.It was not until the Repulicans put up a candidate born outside of the USA proper and the Democrats had a candidate of unknown and fanatically hidden origin that anyone thought to question the thentofore accepted notion that Natural Born meant born within the borders of the United States to a citizen father. The only argument anyone ever made was that both parents must be citizens.
“It’s up to Congress to define who is or isn’t a NBC.
Agree”
Based on this assumption, Congress also has the right to define “arms”, as in Amendment 2 “...keep and bear arms...”, to “appendages” eliminating the ability to own flintlock guns, or pistols, or rifles or the dreaded “assault” weapons.
Likewise, this assumption gives Congress the right to define “speech” as “only what comes out of your mouth that I agree with”. (Seems like they’re working on this one wholeheartedly - is this really where you want to go?)
Do you seriously believe the Founders gave Congress the ability to redefine native terms in the Constitution? If you think they have the constitutional authority to define NBC, then they have the authority to redefine it and ALL other words/terms in the Constitution. (You must be of the ‘Living Constitution” branch of the Progressive-Americans crowd).
The Naturalization Act of 1795, also signed by the same President George Washington as the 1790 act, was a recognition of an error and repudiation of Congress’ ability to define native Constitutional terms. Citing the 1790 act without acknowledging the 1795 act is intellectually dishonest, or worse. Ted Cruz is guilty of this, much to my disappointment.
Why do you want to accept anything other than the strictest interpretation of born on the soil to citizen parents?
How about children born to US military stationed overseas? Most are covered by Status of Forces Agreements that don't allow citizenship in the host country (unless one of the parents is a citizen.) I'm not agreeing with your definition, just curious about your interpretation of a specific case.
It is the denying of my daughter’s, and thousands of sons and daughters of members of the US Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force from becoming president and also throwing doubt on their basic citizenship. All because their parents answered their nation’s call to serve in the US Armed Forces overseas.
“So if a person, by reason of birth, can be both a US and a Canadian citizen, he - by my thinking - is not natural born.”
Which in your reasoning would also apply to all anchor babies, since in almost all cases, even though born in the United States, are also considered citizens in the parents’ native country. Mexico considers anchor babies also Mexican citizens.
Why is anyone worried about the Constitution?
It doesn’t apply anymore.
So what comes first? Your country, or your kid’s “right” to be president? This great desire to make everyone eligible to be president baffles me.
Ah, have it in my hand, now.
So, trump, and bush are the two choices. That sucks.
Then you will please take notice that the Framers were well aware that all of the people weren’t technically natural born because it was A BRAND NEW COUNTRY. Get it?
Yes, forget the oath thing.
For crying out loud. That pertains to naturalization. Creating a citizen.
You’re doing exactly what your op asked everyone else NOT to do.
“One is NATURALLY a US citizen when one cannot be anything else.
Born here of citizen parents.
Natural born citizen.”
Period.
That law was repealed in 1795. The “natural born” wording was removed, never to return after it was rewritten. I think this was due to the potential for conflict with the purpose of Article II, section 1, clause 5, which is to minimize the likelihood of baleful foreign influence upon the office of POTUS, particularly thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Article II and the NBC requirement is intended as a protection for the office of POTUS, nothing else constitutionally. It was MEANT to be exclusionary. Too many are viewing this matter as a civil rights issue or something.
“Attempting to leave out the U.S. territorial nature of the Canal Zone is dishonest.”
Absolutely. The same goes for anywhere the flag flies. Foreign embassies, military bases and ships, both sea and air.
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.