Posted on 07/13/2019 9:52:40 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Every president to date was either a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or was born in the United States; of these there have been seven that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.[4][5] WIKI
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))
Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.
This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:
Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.
Conclusion
Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.
Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
* Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state per state law.
I don’t think so. There has been no comment from the MSM or the politicians about Harris et al. They are accepted and no challenge will be mounted in any effective quarter because any such challenge would be immediately and loudly proclaimed RACIST and ANTIWOMAN and all who could effectively make the challenge will shrink to whimpering mice. With the Obama precedent established even Trump justices will not deny anyone at all Natural Born-ness. Thomas and Alito are not enough.
The fourteen yr requirement was so that Hamilton would have been eligible to be president. That is probably the only reason such an odd number was chosen.
And if, and only if, Roberts were having to rule on it, what would be do?
Tell the ignorant Founding Fathers who clearly distinguish between THREE types of citizens: native born (what we call a citizen), naturalized (foreign born but legally made a citizen) and Natural Born.
Just because the Constitution is ignored doesn’t mean it doesn’t say what it says.
With Obama people got concerned about where he was born, not to whom. I know his mother was somewhat of a nut-job but who in their right mind would go to Kenya to have a child?
Obama was ineligible, Harris is ineligible, Cruz is ineligible, Jindahl is ineligible, Congress can’t make any of them eligible. McCain’s case was meaningless but he was born to citizen parents out of the country in service to the nation which would not preclude him.
Not true. Only the electors or a direct participant would have “standing”. Obama’s case was dismissed under the courts deciding that the plaintiffs did not have standing so it never addressed any substantive issue.
The federal government must challenge the anchor baby interpretation. Until the Supremes rule otherwise, anchor babies have US citizenship.
Agree - find another hill to die on (for now). I believe President Trump will get to this in his second term.
Nailed it. Thanks.
We need to start calling these people a specific name that defines what they are, that proves they are not natural born citizens.
Maybe the “Alien born citizens” would fit Miss Harris and Miss Gabard?
I was born here to two citizens, so I cant be called an “Alien born Citizen”.
Citizens by birth. I notice you can’t include natural in that definition.
Yep. No court will ever decide otherwise.
We aren’t really sure they were not.
The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting different results.
Couldn’t disagree more. It is not “clear enough that natural born means being born a citizen as opposed to being a naturalized citizen, and being born here makes a person a citizen”. As Klayman states, natural born means born in the US AND of two citizen parents. The rationale for this is the president must have loyalty to the US and no other country. By your reasoning, Chinese parents, having a baby in the US would make that baby eligible to be president. If those parents never became citizens and their loyalties were with Chine, then the child could well have mixed loyalties. That is what natural born is trying to prevent.
“Don’t we have enough problems without feeding the D troll media?” I would propose that while we have a lot of problems, there is none more important or vital to the future of this nation as the constant attempt by the Left, and for that matter the deep swamp, to destroy the foundation of our country — the Constitution. Ignoring the natural born requirement perpetuates the ignoring of the Constitution, and for what, expediency?
It doesn’t matter. No One in charge cares.
We better come up with something better than this.
I like George P. Voted for him when I lived in Texas.
Roberts made it clear in his Obamacare ruling that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to save the voters from themselves.
Right, the GOP does not have the stones to challenge the eligibility of “The first viable African American Presidential Candidate”.
They lied? I know I’m a teen, but doesn’t all Dems (and RINOs, too.) lie? I mean I will accept the results of the election...what a lie...Obama lied...Bush 43 lied...
Will the authors of the amendment work as an authoritative source?
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Notice that they did not use the term natural born citizen for persons born under 14th amendment provisions at the time it was ratified.
The 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, did not refer to, or alter or modify the meaning of an Article II, Section one, clause 5, NBC in any way from it’s inception in 1787.
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.