# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Natural Born Citizen Defined

## PAF

A "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused). This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for presidency - and only for presidency, being clearly distinguished from ordinary citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in any later statutes, because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source "Law of Nations" is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular - against piracies and felonies on high seas). 

According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that: 

Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after. 

In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country. Vattel's own note on the margin of his book refers to the Roman law: NEMO PLUS JURIS TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning "No one can give more rights than he himself has" (by Dr. A. Altec).

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).

Often "Natural born citizenship" is confused with §1401 of the US Code "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth". Although the words sound similar, §1401 defines only ordinary citizenship including such shallow one as that of anchor babies (i.e. born to legal guests of the country, §1401(a), never mind illegal residents). 

The Constitution clearly and explicitly excludes ordinary citizenship for presidency: ordinary citizenship was reserved only for the presidential candidates - contemporaries of the Framers (referred as the grandfather clause). Definitely the "Natural born citizenship" is not the same as ordinary citizenship, but something stronger. By not explicitly quoting Vattel's definition, the Constitution therefore leaves some room for confusion. (Many such confusions resulted of deliberate efforts of "progressives" to erode the basic constitutional concepts inconvenient for them). 

Fortunately there exists (at least) one original US document directly defining the "Natural born citizenship" according to Emerich de Vattel. This document (which does have legal binding) is the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790.

Other arguments in favor of the definition of Vattel are the following. The Framers (in their correspondence) explicitly wished to exclude dual loyalty, and explicitly required that the US citizenship of the president be deeper than ordinary citizenship (such as that of their contemporaries). After all, any one can acquire an ordinary US citizenship in some point of one's life, so the Framers clearly excluded this kind of citizenship. On the contrary, the Natural Born Citizenship cannot be acquired: it may be only inherited.

After the Framers, all the presidential contenders (up to Sen. McCain in 2008 but not Obama) did officially satisfy this definition, demonstrating continuity of the meaning "Natural born citizenship" consistent with that of Vattel . (In the past only one President Chester Arthur 1881-1885 violated it, hiding and destroying the traces of the British citizenship of his father, discovered only after his death. The carefully hidden violation of Chester Arthur in fact is an additional argument that the Vattel's definition was valid and he was aware of it). 

Consult the same source that the founders consulted to understand their intent:

The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns - Emer De Vattel

Chapter 19, Section 212 - Citizens and Natives (p.101)

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence to what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the father is therefore that of the children."

Justice Marshall's opinion reiterates this definition. Only an amendment would alter this, which has been repeatedly attempted but so far has failed.

Fact: The US Constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

Fact: John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington suggesting the requirement be made.

Fact: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212

Fact: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying, (#123) 'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'

http://openjurist.org/12/us/253/the-venus-rae-master

Fact: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr. Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and none disputed his definition:

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in the Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of the laws and a compliance with the provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lw....html#anchor37


It is clear - a natural born citizen is a child born of TWO parents of the same citizenship. This is 'jus sanguinis' not 'jus soli'.

It is our duty to know our laws so that nobody perverts them, and to defend and protect against those who wish to see the Constitution dead.

____

H. J. RES. 67 –John Conyers [D-MI] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Sept. 3, 2003)

H. J. RES. 2 –John Conyers [D-MI] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Jan. 4, 2005)

H. J. RES. 42 –Vic Snyder [D-AR] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President. (April 14, 2005)

S. 2678 -Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO], tried to attach to SB 2678 an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors. (Feb. 28, 2008)

H. J. Res. 15  Rep. José Serrano [D-NY] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. (January 04, 2013)


____

Taken from various sources.
____

Added October 21, 2016








*Publius Huldah - Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained*

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...zen-explained/

----------


## Ronin Truth

I don't seem to recall that Obama's father was a U.S. citizen.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I don't seem to recall that Obama's father was a U.S. citizen.


Exactly. But as we have found in discussions over Obarry's qualifications, those pooh-poohing the subject rely on the statutory definition of citizenship and say that's sufficient to qualify him, or else feign they are unclear of the Constitutional/original intent meaning of "natural born." When that meaning is clarified for them, they then say the Constitutional standard doesn't matter. Either way, they deny its relevancy or clarity, or else say it is subordinate to subsequent statutes or case law precedent.

Since this is the same approach to Constitutional issues that non-liberty people take when it comes to every other topic, it means we lose the Constitutional high ground when we also become selective about which of its provisions we will defend. Undeclared wars? That's okay, because the War Powers Act gives the Executive sufficient authority. Federal Reserve? That's okay too, as Congress passed a statute a century ago to let the banks issue fiat currency, regardless of the Constitution's demand that only the Treasury may do so, and that it be based on gold and silver. Patriot Act et al? Well, the courts have basically upheld it...

Our consistent benchmark is either the original intent of the Constitution, or nothing, otherwise we are in no better position to complain about politicians fudging their adherence to it at will.

----------


## PAF

Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, etc. It will be “republican” politicians and voters who will seal-the-deal and establish precedence.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> FACT: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr. Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and NONE disputed his definition. *NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since*, so the definition of 'natural-born citizens' remains as such (as per last sentence of this paragraph):


*Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.*  You have squat.

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since", but I'm 99% certain (not 100%), that _your argument_ is full of holes:




> *Congress Tried to Change Natural Born Citizen Clause Over and Over*
> 
> He outlines the specifics:
> 
>     June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.
> 
> Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyders, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement. But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States, which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabachers.Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years citizenship.Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what natural-born citizen includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/


Your strange fidelity to positive law is cute, like puppy love, I guess.  That said, you need to at least ground your arguments in reality and not make claims that would require 151 years of continuous _and_ complete congressional monitoring.

More so, if it mattered all that much, you haven't explained how a constitution from 1787 could survive to 1862 without the benefit of Bingham's words.

More so, you haven't explained the clear meaning of "NO ONE has ever disputed this definition".  If I define you as a dip$#@! on the floor of Congress, and "NO ONE" [!] disputes it, are you then a dip$#@!?  Do I get a cookie?

Where in the Constitution does it exalt a Congressman's words so $#@!ing highly?  I think it intended to give people more power and the government less.  This includes the power to elect African-Amerians with whom you may or may not have some disagreements.

We didn't have an NBC until 8th President per Wiki:




> The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.[30] The first president to be born an American citizen was Martin Van Buren.[31]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...e_US#Executive


I'm guessing this is either because they didn't give a $#@! or because Bingham was 22 by then and people started to take him seriously.




> Our consistent benchmark is either the original intent of the Constitution, or nothing, otherwise we are in no better position to complain about politicians fudging their adherence to it at will.


Liberty is the consistent benchmark.  We may fight and bitch over the meaning but the same happens with the Constitution.  Difference is, your hands are tied, mine are not.

----------


## PAF

..

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Who is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America*
> A "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused). This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for presidency - and only for presidency_,_ being clearly distinguished from _ordinary_ citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in any later statutes, because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source "Law of Nations" is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular - against piracies and felonies on high seas). 
> 
> According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that: 
> 
> 
> *Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.* 
> 
> In other words, a _natural born citizen_ means _at least a second generation citizen_ of the country. Vattel's own note on the margin of his book refers to the Roman law: NEMO PLUS JURIS TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning "No one can give more rights than he himself has" (by Dr. A. Altec). Except for Obama/Soetoro, the Vattel definition had been always applied, the last precedent being the US Senate resolution 511 in 2008 (also here and here) acknowledging Sen. McCain as a natural born citizen.
> ...



http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Perhaps we will work well together. And no, my hands are NEVER tied, as will you soon discover.


That comment was more for Peace&Freedom.

I just never see myself as a Constitutionalist.  The copyright clause, many of the amendements (prohibition), slavery-anti-slavery-yet-somehow-a-draft-is-permitted BS, taxation and related amendments, the easily misinterprested general welfare and interstate commerce stuff.  Mainly I don't "agree to agree" to the amendment or legal process either.  It seems by being a Constitutionalist - however superior it may seem - I get none of the value because the modern state won't change as a result of documents ignored for decades.  More so, I'd be lending consent in areas the TPTB simply don't deserve.

They wanted a constitution with stronger Federal government, got it, and proceed to ignore all limitations, so the deal is broke.  End of story.  It would have to be a far, far better constitution to get my support.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Repeated attempts have been made to change the clause:
> 
> H. J. RES. 67 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Sept. 3, 2003)
> 
> H. J. RES. 104 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years. (Sept. 15, 2004)
> 
> H. J. RES. 2 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Jan. 4, 2005)
> 
> H. J. RES. 15 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years. (Feb. 1, 2005)
> ...



This right here should be PROOF they were grooming Obama for the office.  And when they couldn't get the law changed, they just forged a certificate.

----------


## TaftFan

*United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).*

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:  Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

----------


## idiom

So is Cruz screwed or not?

Any of the Cruz boosters actually seen his mothers long form birth certificate?

----------


## erowe1

Fact 1: A Natural Born Citizen is any citizen who is a citizen from the time or their birth.

Fact 2: The laws that define what must be true of someone for them to be a citizen at the time of their birth can change, but these changing laws do not change the fact that a natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth.

Fact 3: Nothing in the OP goes against Facts 1 and 2.

----------


## erowe1

> So is Cruz screwed or not?


No. He is a natural born citizen, since he has been a citizen since his birth.

----------


## idiom

> No. He is a natural born citizen, since he has been a citizen since his birth.


Born in Canada to a mother of vauge citizenship qualifies as natural born now?

----------


## erowe1

> Born in Canada to a mother of vauge citizenship qualifies as natural born now?


If it makes him a citizen, then yes, it makes him natural born.

Anyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth is a natural born citizen.

What do you mean by "now"? Is this a change from how it used to be?

----------


## PAF

- Senator Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and thus automatically a Canadian citizen. Cruz's father was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba, his mother born in Wilmington, Delaware. Cruz announced that he is renouncing his Canadian citizenship. [See “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution for President and by the 12th Amendment for Vice President.]

After his student visa expired, Rafael Cruz obtained political asylum in the U.S. He then found work with the oil industry in Canada, where Ted Cruz was born. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz became a Canadian citizen while in Canada. While his son was serving as solicitor general of Texas in 2005, Rafael Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship and became an American citizen.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...slon-Cruz-Bios

----------


## 69360

Cruz is eligible so was Obama. Birtherism does nothing but stigmatize the candidate you support.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Cruz is eligible so was Obama. Birtherism does nothing but stigmatize the candidate you support.


Since apparently the laws no longer matter.  How about Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS?

----------


## erowe1

> Since apparently the laws no longer matter.  How about Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS?


Schwarzenegger is disqualified by the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen. Cruz and Obama are.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Cruz is eligible so was Obama. Birtherism does nothing but stigmatize the candidate you support.



What the heck is birtherism?  Starting to read or hear of a new ism every day.

Oh, never mind. I sometimes forget my own sig. 

I think that natural citizenship is a very important topic for debate and shouldn't be relegated to natural "born" citizenship for what it's worth. That simply waters down the significance of the manipulation of citizenship in general.

I want to see Monsanto's birth certificate. Maybe Wal-Mart's. Or Google's. These are the "People" who need to have some citizenship revoked and whom enjoy a vast deal of influence over policy that affects natural citizens.Ted Cruz is just another fly by nighter that we'll forget about in a few years from now imo. He's a stalking horse for the very powers that helped to put us in the mess we're in and now they want their power back since the political infrastructure is in a state of complete tyranny and they have a democrat to blame it on while reaping the rewards. A poser....

----------


## erowe1

> - Senator Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and thus automatically a Canadian citizen. Cruz's father was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba, his mother born in Wilmington, Delaware. Cruz announced that he is renouncing his Canadian citizenship. [See “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution for President and by the 12th Amendment for Vice President.]
> 
> After his student visa expired, Rafael Cruz obtained political asylum in the U.S. He then found work with the oil industry in Canada, where Ted Cruz was born. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz became a Canadian citizen while in Canada. While his son was serving as solicitor general of Texas in 2005, Rafael Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship and became an American citizen.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...slon-Cruz-Bios


What about his American citizenship? When did Cruz get that?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Schwarzenegger is disqualified by the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen. Cruz and Obama are.


According to who?

----------


## erowe1

> According to who?


The naturalization laws that have been passed by Congress, which the Constitution delegates the authority to legislate laws of naturalization.

----------


## tommyrp12

> It is our duty to know our laws in order to defend and protect against those who wish to see the Constitution dead.


Its fairly useless as it originally pertains to the founders and their posterity and trustees only. Not us. 

I'm not so sure being a citizen is a good thing too. I don't want to be one.

Forced induction into a private society subject to fake positive laws written by a few guys in a territory under the threat of violence and or death is called involuntary servitude.  
Citizenship = slavery.  

"*We the People*  of the United States <(the estate)>, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."




> CAPITALIZATION RULES
> 8.  countries, nationalities, and specific languages
> 10.  names of national, political, racial, social, civic, and athletic groups
> 16.  salutations and closings in letters - first word only unless proper name is used





> In a relevant sense, a trust can be viewed as a generic form of a corporation where the settlors (investors) are also the beneficiaries





> 28 USC § 3002 - Definitions
> (15) “United States” means—  
>  (A) a Federal corporation;  
> 
>  (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or  
> 
>  (C) an instrumentality of the United States.





> In the United States, the settlor is also called the trustor, grantor, donor or creator. In some other jurisdictions, the settlor may also be known as the founder.


I'm not them or their posterity. Im not a trustee ,I don't have a oath, so that just leaves chattel.





> Chattel 
> An item of Personal Property that is movable; it may be animate or inanimate.
> 
> Chattels are synonymous with goods or *personalty*.






> PERSONALITY. An abstract of personal; as, the action is in the personalty, that is, it is brought against a person for a personal duty which he owes. It also signifies what belongs to the person; as, personal property.







> PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law,* man and person are not exactly synonymous terms*. *Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not*, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. *A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society*, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.


So to be a person there has to be a rank in society that he holds, but a man is a human being weather he belongs to that society or not. 

Free human being > civil person/a

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Fact 1: A Natural Born Citizen is any citizen who is a citizen from the time or their birth.


Not by the original intent Constitutional standard as documented by the OP and other posters. It is that standard that governs whether someone qualifies as 'natural born' as per the Founders' intention, not ordinary language constructions. 




> Fact 2: The laws that define what must be true of someone for them to be a citizen at the time of their birth can change, but these changing laws do not change the fact that a natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth.


The law, the Constitution being the superceding one, defines the legal facts pertaining to one's status, not ordinary language constructions. 




> Fact 3: Nothing in the OP goes against Facts 1 and 2.


Nothing in the ordinary language constructions of claimed "Facts 1 and 2" invalidates anything in the OP.

----------


## erowe1

> Not by the original intent Constitutional standard as documented by the OP and other posters


That is false.

The phrase "natural born" was a perfectly normal idiom in English at the time of the Constitution, and it meant just what I said. What it meant to be a natural born anything was to be that thing from the time of one's birth.

As I said, they may have had specific laws that defined legally what would have to be true of someone in order for them to be a citizen at the time of their birth. But those laws could change just like any other laws. As those laws change, it would continue to be the case that a natural born citizen would be anyone who has been a citizen since their birth, which is the same thing that phrase meant in the original Constitution.

----------


## erowe1

> Nothing in the ordinary language constructions of claimed "Facts 1 and 2" invalidates anything in the OP.


It's what the OP is pushing that's wrong, which is the notion that just because the Constitution uses the phrase "natural born citizen," we have some obligation to apply the same laws about how to be a natural born citizen that were in place at some earlier time in America's history, such that people who are citizens at the time of their birth according to these later laws would not qualify constitutionally as natural born citizens.

----------


## CPUd

> Schwarzenegger is disqualified by the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen. Cruz and Obama are.


Yes, I remember there was a lot of discussion about an amendment in 2003-2006, because they were wanting him to run for President in 2008.  At the same time, people in Austria were wanting him to come back there and run.

----------


## RonZeplin

> So is Cruz screwed or not?


He's doubly ineligible being born of a Cuban father, in Canada.

*The list of ineligible candidates:*

Barack Obama - double?
John McCain 
Mitt Romney
Ted Cruz - double
Bill Richardson
Marco Rubio - double
Bobby Jindal - ?


Ronald Reagan left -Natural Born, Barack Obama right - Native Born

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

----------


## Valli6

Consult the same source that the founders consulted to understand their intent.  

*The Law of Nations:* _Or,  Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns_ - Emer De Vattel
Chapter 19,  Section 212 - _Citizens and Natives_ (p.101)




> _"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence to what it owes to it's own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the father is therefore that of the children."_
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b...vattel&f=false


Justice Marshall's opinion reiterates this definition. Only an ammendment would alter this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Consult the same source that the founders consulted to understand their intent. 
> 
> *The Law of Nations:* _Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns_ - Emer De Vattel
> Chapter 19, Section 212 - _Citizens and Natives_ (p.101)
> 
> 
> Justice Marshall's opinion reiterates this definition. Only an ammendment would alter this.


And yet, there he sits in the White House twice elected POTUS.

----------


## erowe1

> Only an ammendment would alter this.


False. The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to legislate naturalization. If anyone is a US citizen at the time of their birth according to US law, then they are, according to the very same definition that obtained when the Constitution was ratified, a natural born citizen.

----------


## Valli6

> False. The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to legislate naturalization. If anyone is a US citizen at the time of their birth according to US law, then they are, according to the very same definition that obtained when the Constitution was ratified, a natural born citizen.


Vattel defines _"natural-born"_ citizenship and _"naturalized"_ citizenship separately. 

If you are a "naturalized" citizen, it's because you were not "naturally-born" (which would make naturalization unnecessary.) Natural-born citizenship means that specific circumstances were true at the time of birth. It's not something that can come about through naturalization or any other process. A child born in America to a non-citizen may be a naturalized citizen, but that doesn't make him natural-born.

I think(?) it is correct to say that "natural-born" refers to a law of nature, while "naturalized" refers to a law created by men. You can never alter a law of nature, only the laws of men.

*The Law of Nations:*_ Or,  Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns_ 
Chapter 19,  Section 213 - _Naturalization_ (p.102)



> A nation or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of a citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called _naturalization_. 
> 
>  there are states, as, for instance England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.


http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b...vattel&f=false

----------


## erowe1

> Vattel defines _"natural-born"_ citizenship and _"naturalized"_ citizenship separately.


Someone is a "natural born X" if they were an X from the time of their birth on. This is what that idiom has always meant, including when the Constitution was ratified.

The question of what is required for someone to be a citizen at the time of their birth is a legal one, subject to whatever laws obtain at that time. It doesn't matter what those laws were at the time of the Constitution. If the laws at the time of Cruz's birth made him a citizen, then he is a natural born citizen, and he is one by the same definition of "natural born citizen" as the one intended in the original Constitution. The fact that there was a different law at that time doesn't change that.

In fact, as I re-read your post, I don't even see anything that weighs against what I said. Cruz was not naturalized. He was a US citizen since his birth.

The following is from the Oxford English Dictionary. Notice the years of the examples.



> 1. Having a specified position, nationality, etc., by birth; native-born. See naturally born adj. at naturally adv. 11a. Cf. also natural adj. 14a.
> 
> 1583   Ld. Burghley Execution of Iustice sig. E.iii,   D. Sanders a natural borne Subiect but an unnaturall worne priest.
> 1598   W. Phillip tr. J. H. van Linschoten Disc. Voy. E. & W. Indies i. xxix. 53/2   The children of Mestiços are of colour and fashion like the naturall borne Countrimen.
> 1625   in H. L'Estrange Reign King Charles (1655) 21   Divers of the naturall-born subjects of this Kingdome..do..claim precedency of the Peers of this Realm.
> 1695   Act 7 & 8 Will. III (1696) 478   A Natural born Subject of this Realm..Who shall be willing to Enter and Register himself for the Service of His Majesty.
> 1709   Act 7 Anne c. 5 §3   The Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her Majesty..shall be deemed..to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom.
> 1776   in T. Jefferson Public Papers 344   All persons who..propose to reside..and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws, shall be considered as residents and entitled to all the rights of persons natural born.
> 1833   Penny Cycl. I. 338/2   It is not true that every person, born out of the dominion of the crown, is therefore an alien; nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject.
> ...

----------


## CPUd

These guys were natural born:

----------


## enoch150

> [B]We didn't have an NBC until 8th President per Wiki:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.[30] The first president to be born an American citizen was Martin Van Buren.[31]
> 			
> ...


The Presidents prior to Van Buren were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution - the exception to be a natural born citizen allowed by the Constitution. There were no natural born American citizens prior to Van Buren because they were born English citizens, during colonial times.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> The Presidents prior to Van Buren were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution - the exception to be a natural born citizen allowed by the Constitution. There were no natural born American citizens prior to Van Buren because they were born English citizens, during colonial times.


Thanks - I regretted posting that argument for that reason.  I was too hasty.

----------


## paleocon1

John McCain was NOT a NBC.

_The analysis,  by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely  overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCains eligibility to be president.  The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in  the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before  his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued,  to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
_
_Its preposterous that  a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced  democracy, Professor Chin said. But this is the constitutional text  that we have._

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us...cain.html?_r=0

----------


## acptulsa

The Canal Zone had nothing to do with it.  McCain was born in a hospital in the nation of Panama, outside the Zone.  He is a natural born citizen because the children of active duty military personnel stationed overseas are natural born citizens by federal statute.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

The political semantics of natural born can be debated all day because of the differences between how allegiance was derived among English and French at the time of the revolution.  There is an absolute line on this topic and that line is an operation of law.  If citizenship derives from an operation of law it can not logically be natural because citizenship derived from an operation of law is the essence of naturalized.  One can not logically acquire natural born citizenship by federal statute because that would be deriving citizenship from positive law which makes citizenship acquired by an operation of law versus the physical act of being natural born which is something that occurs in nature.  Federal statutes can only naturalize as power has only been delegated to define a rule of naturalization.  There has been no power delegated to define, establish rules for, or regulate natural born.  Defining, establishing rules for, or regulating natural born citizenship is not necessary or proper to exercise any delegated powers.  For all of the linguistic or semantic cleverness of attorneys they have not enough common sense to defeat sound logic and reason.

Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. -Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition

Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a. person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. -Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition

Natural. Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". Department of Public Works and Bldgs. for and in Behalf of People v. Keller, 22 Ill.App.3d 54, 316 N.E.2d 794, 796. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the  cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal;" and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal  considerations or sanctions. -Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition

NATURAL. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal;" and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions -Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition

On a side note, the so called legal juristic definitions of natural key on things that are attributable to the nature of man, as distinguished from positive enactments of law.  If one were to define natural born it would be wise to define it in such terms that can be attributed to the nature of man.  Any such definition would be logically consistent and extremely sound.

----------


## HVACTech

^^ this ^^

+ rep.




> There is an absolute line on this topic and that line is an operation of law. If citizenship derives from an operation of law it can not logically be natural because citizenship derived from an operation of law is the essence of naturalized. One can not logically acquire natural born citizenship by federal statute because that would be deriving citizenship from positive law which makes citizenship acquired by an operation of law versus the physical act of being natural born which is something that occurs in nature.

----------


## tommyrp12

A good article i found today. 

Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?
An Analysis of President Lincoln's
Legal Arguments Against Secession

by James Ostrowski





> CONCLUSION
> 
> The Union's invasion and subsequent military occupation of the Confederacy were illegal. Today, however, the Fourteenth Amendment arguably prohibits secession by implication. Nevertheless, that Amendment, insofar as it can be interpreted to bar state secession  is tainted. It is the direct result of the illegal invasion and subsequent military domination of the South. Even the Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly outlaw secession, and there remains a conflict between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in this regard. This conflict should be resolved by reference to the doctrine of inalienable rights, of which secession is one.


The 14th amendment is defective for being ratified under duress.It also seemed to have changed the relationship between the people and the government. From sovereign individuals with inalienable rights to chattel (citizens/legal persons) with privileges and immunities subject to the governments jurisdiction. 




> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The quote below is not from the article.



> It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises,* immunities and privileges*; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject.* No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [...] and have none to govern but themselves*[.] --Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 - Supreme Court 1793

----------


## JK/SEA

> The naturalization laws that have been passed by Congress, which the Constitution delegates the authority to legislate laws of naturalization.


this.

i know some of you dislike Cruz, as do i, but this issue is a distraction only.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That is false.
> 
> The phrase "natural born" was a perfectly normal idiom in English at the time of the Constitution, and it meant just what I said. What it meant to be a natural born anything was to be that thing from the time of one's birth.
> 
> As I said, they may have had specific laws that defined legally what would have to be true of someone in order for them to be a citizen at the time of their birth. But those laws could change just like any other laws. As those laws change, it would continue to be the case that a natural born citizen would be anyone who has been a citizen since their birth, which is the same thing that phrase meant in the original Constitution.


I honestly had no desire to jump into this, but you do know it's not idiom that defines the meaning of words and phrases in law right?  Law uses lawyer language, not idiom language.  That practice predates the American colonies, and the Framers were well away of legalese.  Under English Common Law, you can't look to idiom, but to precedent.

Bear in mind that I don't actually care about this issue.  It's a non-starter.  The PTB ignore the most important parts of the Constitution every day.  Expecting them to honor this, much more minor part is expecting the impossible.  I am minded to agree with a more rigorous definition of Natural Born Citizen per original intent; and we see that Congress themselves defined it in 1790 (Post 10) less rigorous than the Law of Nations, but clearly more rigorously than just a citizen from birth.


The 1790 law leaves open a lot of questions, but it's obvious intent was the same as before mentioned, a bulwark against dual, and possibly conflicting loyalties.  Really, strictly by original intent, a candidate Obama may be precisely what they were trying to prevent, and would have if they had defined it a little better.

But at the end of the day it's irrelevant.  Not enough people care about the big things like the right to assemble, speak, bear arms, and privacy.  They sure aren't going to care about some dusty legalistic interpretation of a citizenship requirement buried in the Constitution that nobody actually reads anyway.  Let's take back the right to self determination first, and then worry about the smaller stuff once we teach them to care about it.

At this stage of the United States and in this state of madness, the citizen question has become a distraction.  TPTB rejoice when they see it come up again, because they know it will keep everyone absorbed, and nothing can ever possible come of it.

----------


## idiom

> I honestly had no desire to jump into this, but you do know it's not idiom that defines the meaning of words and phrases in law right?  Law uses lawyer language, not idiom language.  That practice predates the American colonies, and the Framers were well away of legalese.  Under English Common Law, you can't look to idiom, but to precedent.


Was like a second from getting really personally offended.

Too much painkiller.

----------


## osan

Yet another example of the weaknesses of the Constitution.  The natural born requirement may have made sense in the days of framing, and I am not nearly convinced that it did, but it most certainly no longer makes sense in the wake of the past 228 years of experience, especially that of the last 50.  Does anyone here really believe that, had Bammy's parents been even "natural born" themselves that they would have raised him to love this land?  Forgive me, but you would have to be stupid beyond that of a napkin to accept that as even plausible, much less likely.  It appears to me that his parents were marginalized, disenfranchised, self-hating examples of the bottom of the human barrel.  They produced a child and he was raised on hatred of self, his fellows, and apparently taught that the imposition of equal misery for all ****-sapiens was the only just and fitting circumstance for global mankind.

Would the child of Eldridge Cleaver and Angela Davis (ouch), being a "natural born" citizen, have been a guaranteed "loyal" American?

The concept of "loyalty" is almost idiotic, save when applied in the most specific terms.  To speak of "loyalty" in the apparently broad manner found in the Constitution either never had any meaning of sufficient specificity across the spectrum of its use, or that meaning has been lost.  Either way, we would have to define it for ourselves a second time, thereby demonstrating once again the weakness of the document, the weakness of such documents in general, and the precarious nature of language demonstrating precisely why training in language skills and a measure of sternness in the regard of its use is so damned critical to the inter-generational propagation of knowledge.

The example of Obama also underscores the terribly precarious position in which Americans have to foolishly placed themselves.  The man is clearly a treasonous puppet, merrily waving at us from someone's back pocket while wearing the deeply smug expression on his kisser - and yet, we appear either unwilling or unable to remove him to the end of a rope where he belongs.  It is now clear that the "loyalty" of a high-ranking government official matters no whit in terms of his ability to operate as such an official with apparent impunity.  We have a Congress and a Cabinet full of the squirming, slimy little darlings.

Spooner was right when he wrote that the Constitution has proven itself inadequate to its ostensible task.  Of course it is - it is merely words on a sheet of paper.  It cannot stand up under its own will and enforce its own principles and structural dictates.  Spooner failed in not placing the real onus upon the people who allowed the vagaries of the document to be exploited in the ways resulting in the gross violation of rights of which no man or group thereof holds authority to elide.  Our Constitution is a mistake upon mistakes because it focuses on all the things that lead to tyranny while paying only the most passing lip service to the actual rights it purports to hold as its raison d'être.  Sometimes I honestly wonder whether the Framers were playing a huge and ultimately not-so-funny joke upon the posterity for whom they claimed to have established this new nation.

In the days of the Framers, perhaps it may be argued that the Constitution is what we needed.  Perhaps my vision of a properly freed people would have been too big a step to take in those days.  Perhaps the subsequent loss of the generally palpable moral framework that existed in those days is more a cause our currently pitiable political circumstance than the deficiencies of the Constitution itself, given the lassitude and morbid avarice to which it has lead.

All I know is that things have changed because _mind_ has changed.  Whatever it may once have been, it is clear to me that the Constitution is no longer sufficient to its ostensible task of limiting government because the minds of the vast majority of the people have been lead so far astray of the proverbial "straight and narrow" that I see little chance of bringing that document back to its proper relevancy without a massively concerted and sufficiently broad effort to reeducate people in the fundamental principles of proper human relations.  Inculcate the race with these and documents such as the Constitution become virtually irrelevant.  Were people well trained in proper human relations, their full freedoms restored, in time a new equilibrium would emerge and the empowered individual would, through his sense of enlightened self-interest, become the sentinel of all human rights.  A nation of such men would become incorruptible precisely because it would be self-correcting.  When the individual is allowed his rightful power to remove life itself from those who violate him, the land quickly settles into an equilibrium of respect of one man for his fellows on the knowledge that his outlandish behavior toward his fellows could likely result in his immediate extinguishment from the book of life.

That may seem harsh to some, but it is not.  The mere threat of such outcomes is much like the threat of a homeowner with a firearm before an intruder.  Rarely are shots fired.  The mere threat of the homeowner's credible force against the criminal is almost universally sufficient to halt the perfidy in its tracks.  So would it be with the general state of human relations.  People would, by and large, see the light rapidly and come to a new mind in terms of their places in the world in relation to their fellows.   There are extant examples of this currently observable to anyone with eyes seeking to see.  Go to NYC or NJ and observe people.  You will see with some frequency people acting in idiotic ways toward others.  Rush hour traffic is a great place to observe such interactions such as the display of certain fingers, much swearing and cursing one man against another, as well as the occasionally ill-advised threat of bodily harm.  Now teleport to, say, West Virginia where just about everyone carries a gun.  In my 8 years in WV, I have seen exactly ONE act of impolite expression, a middle finger.  That's it - and yes, I attribute this largely to the ubiquitous carriage of firearms, the knowledge of which tends to keep people's thoughts in a better state of circumspection than in places such as NYC.

As far as I am concerned, the office of President should be an unpaid, part-time position whose sole purpose is to act as Commander In Chief.  I see no need for a Congress and question the need for courts, save perhaps in the rarest of instances where for whatever reason justice has been unattainable by other, more efficient and just means.

----------


## osan

> Exactly. But as we have found in discussions over Obarry's qualifications, those pooh-poohing the subject rely on the statutory definition of citizenship and say that's sufficient to qualify him, or else feign they are unclear of the Constitutional/original intent meaning of "natural born." When that meaning is clarified for them, they then say the Constitutional standard doesn't matter. Either way, they deny its relevancy or clarity, or else say it is subordinate to subsequent statutes or case law precedent.


The slurpers of Obama do this on every front.  It is the way of the progressive.  Baffle them with bull$#@! and, failing that, go into stonewall-denial mode.  Seems to work like a charm every time. 




> Since this is the same approach to Constitutional issues that non-liberty people take when it comes to every other topic, it means we lose the Constitutional high ground when we also become selective about which of its provisions we will defend. Undeclared wars? That's okay, because the War Powers Act gives the Executive sufficient authority. Federal Reserve? That's okay too, as Congress passed a statute a century ago to let the banks issue fiat currency, regardless of the Constitution's demand that only the Treasury may do so, and that it be based on gold and silver. Patriot Act et al? Well, the courts have basically upheld it...


Excellently stated.  Selectivity is very much a two-edged blade.




> Our consistent benchmark is either the original intent of the Constitution, or nothing, otherwise we are in no better position to complain about politicians fudging their adherence to it at will.


This is precise truth.

----------


## osan

> Your strange fidelity to positive law is cute, like puppy love, I guess.


Y'all are just going to have to forgive me for this.  I'm sorry, but not enough to not post this.  I warn you beforehand that eye-protection may be needed.  Likely, in fact.








> Liberty is the consistent benchmark.


Pony up the rep, folks.  Here's the money shot.

One of the better posts I've read lately.  Nicely done.  The dip$#@! thing was a riot.

----------


## osan

> So is Cruz screwed or not?
> 
> Any of the Cruz boosters actually seen his mothers long form birth certificate?


Don't much care, overall, given the almost assured outcome of the ascension of yet another klown-marionette to the office.

What will be interesting, however, is whether the "left" will raise the citizenship issue in the cases of Cruz or, I presume, Rubio.  On that account, it would be really cool to see one of them as a GOP front-runner just to see whether the progressives start banging on that door.  The presumption of intelligence and basic sense would set the presumption that no, they would not dare go there.  And yet, we are witness to such wild insanity on a daily basis, blaring it shrill product across the face of the land, that I would in no way be surprised to see them going at it, full throttle.  I further admit that my curiosity, having gone full-retard, would permit me to look the other way regarding the further dangers that putting a little Klown like Cruz into the Office, for the sake of seeing the left violate all basic and sane sense.  I'd just like to see it, that I might cement my knowledge of just how deeply lost we are as a people, that we would for even a brief moment tolerate such raving idiocy, much less decade over decade.

I'm getting the popcorn, a large stash of beer, turning down the lights, and getting good and comfy in wait.  I hope not to be disappointed.

----------


## osan

> Since apparently the laws no longer matter.  How about Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS?


$#@! that noise.  How about me?  There's your $#@!ing liberty candidate.

----------


## osan

> According to *who*?


WHOM, God damn it.  Words matter.

----------


## osan

> These guys were natural born:



Bet there wasn't a president in the lot, either.

----------


## mrsat_98

> Since apparently the laws no longer matter.  How about Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS?





> Schwarzenegger is disqualified by the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen. Cruz and Obama are.





> False. The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to legislate naturalization. If anyone is a US citizen at the time of their birth according to US law, then they are, according to the very same definition that obtained when the Constitution was ratified, a natural born citizen.


"At this point what difference does it make ?"

----------


## OReich

OP, so you don't consider the 14th amendment part of the constitution? It says anyone born under US jurisdiction is a natural born citizen. US jurisdiction = wherever US law applies, meaning US territory (minus foreign embassies?), as well as US military bases and embassies in other countries.

And if someone has PROOF Obama was not born here, to contradict the Hawaii newspaper that reported his birth before anyone expected him to run for president, please show it. Saying he wasn't born here, or pointing out Obama's lack of evidence, is not proof (since Obama WANTS you to scream he's not born here, you're not catching him or hurting him in any way).

----------


## PAF

Cruz is not eligible. Read entire O/P.

----------


## Jan2017

John Jay's language and delegate George Washington introduction of that clause for the commander-in-chief (which passed) or for Senators (which did not pass)
is clear and was what was voted on at the constitutional convention in the summer of 1787 -
also clear by the dispute whether VP Chester Arthur was native-born because of what side of the Canada - Vermont border the family home was on.

No real push to amend that clause of the US Constitution, yet enough voters will reject a Canadian-born candidate in a general election is certain.

----------


## Jan2017

> this.
> 
> i know some of you dislike Cruz, as do i, but this issue is a distraction only.


It will definitely be a general election loss though.

----------


## Jan2017

> The Presidents prior to Van Buren were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution - the exception to be a natural born citizen allowed by the Constitution. There were no natural born American citizens prior to Van Buren because they were born English citizens, during colonial times.


fwiw, the Pennsylvania colony delegate that was NOT born in the colonies (but rather, in Scotland) is what convinced the constitutional convention to vote down the native-born clause for the legislative branch - born in the colonies was considered native-born for the commander-in-chief constitutional requirement.

But the Scot would never be President for that caveat.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> fwiw, the Pennsylvania colony delegate that was NOT born in the colonies (but rather, in Scotland) is what convinced the constitutional convention to vote down the native-born clause for the legislative branch - born in the colonies was considered native-born for the commander-in-chief constitutional requirement.
> 
> But the Scot would never be President for that caveat.


Not true, "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," clearly allows people who were born wherever to be eligible so long as they were citizens when the Constitution was adopted.

----------


## Jan2017

> fwiw, the Pennsylvania colony delegate that was NOT born in the colonies (but rather, in Scotland) is what convinced the constitutional convention to vote down the native-born clause for the legislative branch - born in the colonies was considered native-born for the commander-in-chief constitutional requirement.
> 
> But the Scot would never be President for that caveat.


What  is "not true" in this statement ?

I believe the added clause was actually to prevent a "colonist" born in one of the 13 colonies that considered not ratifying the Constitution 
(a few states still threatened to secede from the new pact) - making it "more" exclusive - not less.

A foreign-born (and also as well, anyone born in a colony that did not ratify) would be ineligible. 
That was John Jay's and the founders' intent. No foreigners(period)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What  is "not true" in this statement ?


You're....not serious are you?

None of that "born in the colonies or not born in the colonies" is even remotely relevant, since eligibility was conferred upon all persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.  That means your entire argument about "the Scot" is nonsense.  That Scot would have totally been eligible even for President under the Constitution as it was ratified, because he was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.  




> I believe the added clause was actually to prevent a "colonist" born in one of the 13 colonies that considered not ratifying the Constitution 
> (a few states still threatened to secede from the new pact) - making it "more" exclusive - not less.
> 
> A foreign-born (and also as well, anyone born in a colony that did not ratify) would be ineligible. 
> That was John Jay's and the founders' intent. No foreigners(period)


You don't get to assign your own private meaning to words and phrases just to make them mean whatever you want to. The provision for eligibility for persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is quite obviously there, and it quite obviously confers eligibility to any person who was a US citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

What on God's green Earth would lead you to fight that ... blatantly ... obvious ... point?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I don't seem to recall that Obama's father was a U.S. citizen.


Frank Marshall Davis was an American Communist under investigation by the FBI for subversive activites from the early 1950s until 1970 when J. Edgar Hoover died and the investigation was shut down.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*natural born citizen definition

*https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...43.1NYX05ejJ-A

----------


## Jan2017

> You're....not serious are you?
> 
>   That Scot  would have totally been eligible even for President under the  Constitution as it was ratified, because he was a citizen of the US at  the time the Constitution was adopted.


 Not an iota of a chance . . . he was ineligible for POTUS, but not Senate - very well documentable.

The vote on the clause was to exclude a foreign born commander-in-chief . . . foreign meaning outside the colonies of the confederacy.

If a state did not ratify, would a citizen there be foreign-born ? 
No, not really - but they would need to be excluded for president of course.

The now moot second part/clause was not meant to expand the range of president eligibility but to restrict any non-ratifiers 
who were formerly part of the constitutional convention and confederacy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not an iota of a chance . . . he was ineligible for POTUS, but not Senate - very well documentable.


Sorry, I actually read English.  The US Constitution is written in English.  The clause is perfectly clear.  There is no ambiguity in it. You don't get to assign meanings which the language does not support.




> The vote on the clause was to exclude a foreign born commander-in-chief . . . foreign meaning outside the colonies of the confederacy.
> 
> If a state did not ratify, would a citizen there be foreign-born ? 
> No, not really - but they would need to be excluded for president of course.
> 
> The now moot second part/clause was not meant to expand the range of president eligibility but to restrict any non-ratifiers 
> who were formerly part of the constitutional convention and confederacy.



_No Person except_ a natural born Citizen, _or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,_ shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

This is plain unambiguous unequivocal English.  The Framers were expert speakers of English.

----------


## Jan2017

> Sorry, I actually read English.  The US Constitution is written in English.  The clause is perfectly clear.  There is no ambiguity in it. You don't get to assign meanings which the language does not support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _No Person except_ a natural born Citizen, _or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,_ shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
> 
> This is plain unambiguous unequivocal English.  The Framers were expert speakers of English.


The second now-moot clause is clear in showing that a natural born citizen could be different than "a citizen of the United States at the date in 1789".

The Scot was not eligible - as they discussed him specifically over the senator resolution as not being eligible as a senator even - if that had stuck.
At the date of the adoption of the United States he had no claim as a US citizen being born in Scotland and not born in the colonies - 
yet a non-ratifier might try to be considered eligible without the second clause. 
Very crafty clause to be sure for that immediate - yet fleeting after ratification was finished - predicament they were covering their asses for.

----------


## William R

bump

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Since apparently the laws no longer matter.  How about Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS?


Sorry but the truth is that "laws" have NEVER mattered.  "Laws" are nothing but words on paper written down to give TPTB an excuse to use violence on the minions to keep them in line.  Those at the top know the REAL truth...  THERE IS NO LAW!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The second now-moot clause is clear in showing that a natural born citizen could be different than "a citizen of the United States at the date in 1789".


That's not what the English phrase clearly and obviously says.

You are treating it as though it said:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, _being different from a Citizen of the United States_ at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible...
When it does not in fact say that, it *ACTUALLY* SAYS:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible...
Which is clear incontrovertible English.




> The Scot was not eligible - as they discussed him specifically over the senator resolution as not being eligible as a senator even - if that had stuck.
> At the date of the adoption of the United States he had no claim as a US citizen being born in Scotland and not born in the colonies - 
> yet a non-ratifier might try to be considered eligible without the second clause. 
> Very crafty clause to be sure for that immediate - yet fleeting after ratification was finished - predicament they were covering their asses for.


Again, you don't get to assign random meanings to the English language whenever the actual text doesn't say what you want it to.

----------


## PAF

by Publius Huldah August 22, 2015

At the common law, Husband and wife were "one" and The Man was The One. The legal name of this concept is "coverture".

Married women weren't separate legal entities in their own right. Their legal identity was subsumed under their Husband's. Married women weren't "citizens" in their own right.

Vattel and our Framers had the FATHER in mind in their concept of "natural born citizen": The Man is the one who counts! http://thewashingtonstandard.com/wha...-born-citizen/

Later on, with Married Womens' Property Acts in various States, female suffrage with the 19th Amendment, etc., this legal fiction of the wife's legal identity being subsumed into that of her husbands, was ended. [However, as a holdover, married women still sometimes refer to themselves as Mrs. John Smith instead of Mrs. Mary Smith.]

At the time of our Framing, coverture was in full force and effect. SO it was the FATHER's citizenship which counted. That is the original intent. That intent remains until Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 is amended pursuant to Art. V.  I propose an amendment saying that both the Mother and Father must be US Citizens at the time of their child's birth for the child to be a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/wh...-born-citizen/

So under the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 – which original intent continues until changed by amendment – IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO Barack Hussein Obama's mother was, and it doesn't matter WHO Ted Cruz' mother is: Their fathers were not US citizens at the times they were born so THEY ARE NOT "natural born citizens."

Continue:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/na...and-coverture/

Source:

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...and-coverture/

----------


## Jan2017

> That's not what the English phrase clearly and obviously says.
> 
> You are treating it as though it said:No Person except a natural born Citizen, _being different from a Citizen of the United States_ at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible...
> When it does not in fact say that, it *ACTUALLY* SAYS:No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible...
> Which is clear incontrovertible English.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't get to assign random meanings to the English language whenever the actual text doesn't say what you want it to.


No random meaning at all anywhere in my true assertion that 
the guy born under the King and his family born under the King in Scotland was definitely not eligible to ever be commander-in-chief.

Should he be eligible to be a Senator was the only question that came to discussion.

John Jay in writing the phrase that was voted on considered both himself - as one of the "pre-presidents" particularly 
born in New York, and the recipient of the letter - George Washington who was born in Virginia, as natural born citizens.

John Jay's verbatim writing is what the state delegations voted on 
" that the commander-in-chief of the nation shall be a natural born citizen"


The subsequent ratification event clause was written in a draft that was never put before a vote, 
an afterthought of a potential quagmire that is fixed at the moment of ratification. More of a . . .




> " I sure hate that delegate from Rhode Island . . ."
> "Yeah, what a douchebag . . ."
> " Did you see the delegate from the fine colony of Maryland drink him under the table last night ?"
> "Ah, that guy drinks everyone under the table . . . Rhode Island still threatens to secede ya'know . . ."
> " Well one of them is solid behind this new republic - if it can stay together"
> "They are on the bubble, man."
> 
> Guverneur Morris : (dipping the quill into the ink well) ". . . or a US citizen at Adoption".


If anyone thinks that the ratification encouraging clause triggered OFF after full ratification 
was about enabling foreign-soil born citizens to become President momentarily you are wrong.

The Scotland born delegate wasn't a natural-born citizen, or, a US citizen at Adoption. 
It was about where the border would be for the new nation if there was a holdout state which seceded, and Rhode Island was in the top-tier for that.

If you were so infortunate to have been born in a rebel state that would NOT ratify - but the family had already made it to North Carolina -
you'd be cool with the First Supreme Court Chief Justice - no ineligibility for having been a natural born citizen of a seceded Rhode Island
but a US Citizen now in NC, 'fer instance.




> No Person except a natural born Citizen, _being different from a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution_


exactly, the worry of who might not ratify event was over.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No random meaning at all anywhere in my true assertion that 
> the guy born under the King and his family born under the King in Scotland was definitely not eligible to ever be commander-in-chief.
> 
> Should he be eligible to be a Senator was the only question that came to discussion.
> 
> John Jay in writing the phrase that was voted on considered both himself - as one of the "pre-presidents" particularly 
> born in New York, and the recipient of the letter - George Washington who was born in Virginia, as natural born citizens.
> 
> John Jay's verbatim writing is what the state delegations voted on 
> ...


This shyt right here is why Constitutionalism failed in the US.  People just read whatever TF they want to to support their preformed opinions instead of taking the actual plain language English meaning.

----------


## Jan2017

> This shyt right here is why Constitutionalism failed in the US.  People just read whatever TF they want to to support their preformed opinions instead of taking the actual plain language English meaning.


Exactly why the Supreme Court gets involved when a difference of interpretation becomes important in a constitutional case -
not sure if there could be a better way - but a stretch to say it has "failed"

Your notion from reading into the contigiency clause that somehow
a Scotland born commander-in-chief could be possible for some temporary period is historically incorrect.

No foreign born Presidents - simple, as it has always been, and no Chester Arthur if the evidence turned out he was born over the border.
. . . oh, and by the way, no one from a seceding state, should that have occurred - unless they have given up that seceding-state natural-born status
and decided to become a US citizen by moving to a United States ratifier in time.

I do not think there is anything much anywhere - if at all - about the "or" clause. 
Just using simple English works fine . . .
the "or" clause at least shows the writer/drafter contemplated that there could be a distinction between a US citizen and a natural born citizen of the new nation.

----------


## erowe1

> Exactly why the Supreme Court gets involved when a difference of interpretation becomes important in a constitutional case -


But this isn't a case where your interpretation is even possible. If any person was a citizen of the states at the time the Constitution was ratified, they were eligible, regardless where they were born. Nothing any other document says can change that. Even if someone who wrote the words themselves came out and said, "I know that I wrote X, but I really meant Y," that would change nothing. The text that was ratified by the states was the text that said X.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> At the time of our Framing, coverture was in full force and effect. SO it was the FATHER's citizenship which counted. That is the original intent. That intent remains until Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 is amended pursuant to Art. V.


Perhaps it already has.  I think one could successfully argue that basing natural-born citizenship on a coverture theory would violate equal protection.  In other words, it would be impermissible discrimination to say that candidate A (whose father was a citizen) is eligible to be elected President, but candidate B (whose mother was a citizen but whose father wasn't) isn't.

----------


## Schifference

If the intent of something written only a couple hundred years ago in plain English can be debated, how can anyone claim to know the true meaning of religious writings dating back thousands of years?

----------


## erowe1

> If the intent of something written only a couple hundred years ago in plain English can be debated, how can anyone claim to know the true meaning of religious writings dating back thousands of years?


Because simply being able to debate something doesn't mean that you can't know its true meaning.

----------


## Schifference

> Because simply being able to debate something doesn't mean that you can't know its true meaning.


People with totally opposite interpretations both think they know the true meaning.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

So, at this point, what _difference__ does it make??_

----------


## Jan2017

> But this isn't a case where your interpretation is even possible. I
> If any person was a citizen of the states at the time the Constitution was ratified, they were eligible, regardless where they were born. 
> . . .


Yes, exactly. Nothing has to change. Nothing should change - the original intent as written is never changed except by Amendment.

Yep, a natural born citizen or a US citizen at Adoption/Ratification (whether born in Rhode Island or not)

No change in the intent as voted on in the convention by state delegation, and signed by most nearly all delegates to be presented to the states legislatures for ratification and Adoption.  

No foreigner could claim citizenship in the new nation at adoption of the Constitution - no avenue to just mere "citizenship",
which the "or" clause differentiates as a possibility.

Being an inhabitant in the new nation was not citizenship at the moment of full ratification. Lots of spies or defector factions still around.
A foreign-born of foreign parents would never have had an iota of claim as meeting the Presidential Eligibility Clause- 
a Scotland born person could not have an avenue to being a US citizen at Adoption.

It defines that there some future class of people that could become US citizens (however they get citizenship occurring afterward) 
are distinguishable from the natural-born citizens of the nation, the ones who are eligible for the executive spot.. 





> . . . themselves came out and said, "I know that I wrote X, but I really meant Y," that would change nothing. The text that was ratified by the states was the text that said X.


There are actually cases in federal courts that are exactly that. 

It is the only Cruz strategy, to change the original meaning to his current spin . . .
"the intent of the Constitution really means that the Canada-born were eligible to the be USA chief executive" horse$#@!.

"Constitutionalist" TrusTed Cruz just has to go back to the constitution.

----------


## Jan2017

> If the intent of something written only a couple hundred years ago in plain English can be debated, . . .


Still the facts of the intent do not get changed . . . 
This is precisely what courts do, and will always do.  If this becomes a dispute, then it becomes a question of law not a question of fact.

Birthers about McCain or Obama or Chester Arthur had a question of fact - born in the USA or not ?

----------


## euphemia

> The Canal Zone had nothing to do with it.  McCain was born in a hospital in the nation of Panama, outside the Zone.  He is a natural born citizen because the children of active duty military personnel stationed overseas are natural born citizens by federal statute.


And his parents are natural born citizens.  I was born overseas of natural born American citizens, thus, I am a natural born citizen.  

Obama had one parent who was an Amercian citizen.  His father never was American, and neither was his stepfather.  Furthermore, he spent most of his formative years living in Thailand, so he really does not have the sensibilities of an American, whatever his citizenship.

----------


## Jan2017

> John McCain was NOT a NBC.
> 
> _The analysis,  by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely  overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president.  The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in  the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before  his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued,  to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
> _
> _“It’s preposterous that  a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced  democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text  that we have.”_
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us...cain.html?_r=0


Yes, McCain's arguments were a "question of fact" - was he born in the US?

Even if McCain could produce he wasn't actually born in the Panama hospital where the birth log was signed by the Navy doctor,
Panama CanalZone territory was unincorporated territory.

Further, it was no longer any form of US territory . . . willingfully or not.
If the framers had lost ground in battle or by non-ratification, or loss of territory - they wouldn't be able to consider that as born in the US.

And now unfortunately post-McCain, TrusTed Cruz is now saying nothing matters in that President Eligibility Clause.

----------


## Jan2017

> And his parents are natural born citizens.  I was born overseas of natural born American citizens, thus, I am a natural born citizen.


Not a natural born citizen of the US though.

Same as if you were born on a Navy ship sailing in international waters - 
that is believe it or not, right or wrong - not born in the US.
No one is questioning you'd be a US citizen.

----------


## Jan2017

> Cruz is eligible so was Obama. Birtherism does nothing but stigmatize the candidate you support.


Obama was born in the USA's 50th state - Chester Arthur had enough evidence he was born on the Vermont side of the border.

Cruz needs to move the Northern border some hundreds of miles to be USA born.

With the SNL parody of Sarah Palin that "and I can see Russia from my house" - 
a joke that people actually had to argue about the curvature of the earth -
brings to mind "If TrusTed Cruz can even see the USA from his birthplace ?" lol.

----------


## erowe1

> No random meaning at all anywhere in my true assertion that 
> the guy born under the King and his family born under the King in Scotland was definitely not eligible to ever be commander-in-chief.
> 
> Should he be eligible to be a Senator was the only question that came to discussion.


Why do you keep bringing up whether or not something came up for discussion, instead of addressing what the Constitution actually says?

----------


## erowe1

> Not a natural born citizen of the US though.
> 
> Same as if you were born on a Navy ship sailing in international waters - 
> that is believe it or not, right or wrong - not born in the US.
> No one is questioning you'd be a US citizen.


You don't have to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen of the US.

----------


## Jan2017

> You don't have to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen of the US.


"native-born" has been the synonym used in a subsequent Supreme Court case even.
It is what birthers were talking about - Arthur, Romney, Goldwater, McCain, Obama, born in the US ?

But no one can change the meaning to anything else from what was voted on in the constitutional convention and signed off for ratification.

----------


## erowe1

> People with totally opposite interpretations both think they know the true meaning.


Then how is any communication possible at all? Why are you even responding to me? Do you wonder if you might be interpreting my words to mean the exact opposite of what I intended, or that I might be interpreting your words to mean the exact opposite of what you intended?

----------


## erowe1

> "native-born" has been the synonym used in a subsequent Supreme Court case even.
> It is what birthers were talking about - Arthur, Romney, Goldwater, McCain, Obama, born in the US ?
> 
> But no one can change the meaning to anything else from what was voted on in the constitutional convention and signed off for ratification.


Exactly. And nowhere in the Constitution that was ratified does it require that one must be born in the USA to be a natural born citizen.

----------


## Jan2017

> Exactly. And nowhere in the Constitution that was ratified does it require that one must be born in the USA to be a natural born citizen.


other than the vote "that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen of the nation" as transcribed by Madison 
when they used the precise verbatim language of John Jay's letter to a Virginia delegate friend and General.

----------


## erowe1

> other than the vote "that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen of the nation" as transcribed by Madison 
> when they used the precise verbatim language of John Jay's letter to a Virginia delegate friend and General.


I see the phrase "in the Constitution" is a difficult one for you. This seems to be a running theme.

----------


## Jan2017

> I see the phrase "in the Constitution" is a difficult one for you. This seems to be a running theme.


No not at all.  The volumes and volumes of court cases about meaning of all sorts of phrase "in the Constitution" 
are a running theme for challengers, but you can't change that definition now.

Maybe TrusTed will try.

----------


## erowe1

> No not at all.  The volumes and volumes of court cases about meaning of all sorts of phrase "in the Constitution" 
> are a running theme for challengers, but you can't change that definition now.


I haven't referred to a single court case. What are you talking about?

----------


## Jan2017

> I see the phrase "in the Constitution" is a difficult one for you. This seems to be a running theme.


No not at all. The volumes and volumes of court cases about meaning of all sorts of phrase "in the Constitution" 
are a running theme for challengers, but you can't change that definition now.

Maybe TrusTed will try.




> I haven't referred to a single court case. What are you talking about?


"in the Constitution" challenges, whatever the Article in dispute and by whomever, whenever - which happen every day.
Challengers have a difficulty to convince the courts of new or expanded meaning - usually fail, sometimes a difficult interpretation
and you get a dissent opinion from a judge at best, and then the appeals

----------


## erowe1

> Challengers have a difficulty to convince the courts of new or expanded meaning - usually fail, sometimes a difficult interpretation


The opposite is true. Courts routinely give rulings that assert the Constitution to say things other than what it actually says. The whole purpose of having classes in constitutional law is to teach people how to do that.

The fact that you're working so hard to avoid any interaction with the actual text of the Constitution is itself strong evidence against your position.

----------


## Jan2017

> The opposite is true. Courts routinely give rulings that assert the Constitution to say things other than what it actually says. The whole purpose of having classes in constitutional law is to teach people how to do that.
> 
> The fact that you're working so hard to avoid any interaction with the actual text of the Constitution is itself strong evidence against your position.


Well how many cases affirm some new meaning and how many don't in the end - of the hundreds of thousands of cases -
 I don't think has been tabulated. 
fwiw, most challenges to the constitution never make it past District Court,
and get designated "Do Not Publish" unless some interesting legal point. 

Not working hard at all on anything here - typing on a keyboard during breakfast is easy really.
Surely no avoidance of the letter of the law or it's intent - no legal controversy about Cruz's birthplace.
"Natural-born citizen" is what was proposed as the eligibility criteria, brought before vote, and then written into the draft that was approved. Then ratified by the states.

----------


## erowe1

> Well how many cases affirm some new meaning and how many don't in the end - of the hundreds of thousands of cases -
>  I don't think has been tabulated. 
> fwiw, most challenges to the constitution never make it past District Court,
> and get designated "Do Not Publish" unless some interesting legal point. 
> 
> Not working hard at all on anything here - typing on a keyboard during breakfast is easy really.
> Surely no avoidance of the letter of the law or it's intent - there is no legal controversy about Cruz's birthplace.
> "natural-born citizen" is what was proposed as the eligibility criteria, brought before vote, and then written into the draft.


I don't share your living document view of the Constitution. But even if I did, do you really think that a court would rule Cruz ineligible to be POTUS? That's the implication of your line of argument. And if, on the other hand, a court ruled that he was eligible, you would be forced to concede by your own line of reasoning that the court was automatically right, and that the Constitution actually did say whatever that court claimed it said.

----------


## Jan2017

> I don't share your living document view of the Constitution.  . . .


I never have had that living document view of the Constitution at all . . . but cognizant that McCulloch v. Maryland 
often seems to get the blame for starting that $#@!.
President TrusTed would be trying something new not available to the previous 44 US Presidents - but he'll fail before it gets that far.

The courts could only decide a case that gets brought before it - 
some party that has damages from the fraudulent misrepresentation by TrusTed that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

----------


## euphemia

I am a natural born citizen.  I was born on a military base inside the date of the law, to parents who were natural born citizens.  McCain, interestingly enough, was born before the specific law defining the citizenship of children born on military bases.

I don't know what you say to kids whose mothers were married to men posted overseas and who went overseas to be with their husbands.  I left the country of my birth before I was three months old and have never been back.  I had no trouble getting a social security number or registering to vote.  My citizenship has never been in doubt or up for discussion.

----------


## erowe1

> I never have had that living document view of the Constitution at all


A living document view is what you're defending here, whether you admit it or not.

Your aversion to the text of the Constitution is a symptom of it.

----------


## Jan2017

> A living document view is what you're defending here, where you admit it or not.
> 
> Your aversion to the text of the Constitution is a symptom of it.


I never have had any aversion to the text of the Constitution one bit. 
 The text of the President Eligibility Clause as written was drafted from the vote for no Foreigners.





> "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, 
> and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen."





.

----------


## Zippyjuan

How does John Jay define "natural born"?  Returning to the Harvard Law Review: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/




> The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.12×
> 12. Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).
> ...

----------


## Jan2017

> How does John Jay define "natural born"?  . . .


I do think that from the full sentence mentioning "natural born Citizen" -
"to declare expressly" (i.e. put it into the new document up for vote) something that would put into effect 
"a strong check to the Admission of Foreigners into the administration of our new government" -

is an excellent full indication of the meaning, and might have been read out in full since someone also suggested that they consider Senators too.

----------


## Zippyjuan

So John Jay's children would be considered "foreigners" and ineligible to become president- even if they are kids of one of the more famous of the Founding Fathers.

----------


## osan

I am thinking this entire concern over "natural born" is a waste of time - a wholesale misdirection of energy.  What is to say that a tyrant cannot be "natural born"?  What is to say a great leader cannot come from abroad, assuming such a thing even exists?

What is important is compliance of so-called "leaders" to the limits of their delegated powers, which they exercise in trust for "the people".  To violate that trust is, IMO, a capital offense.  Exercise enforcement of the limits and timbre of political power by hanging all transgressors by their necks and the issue of "natural born" becomes immaterial.  Was Slick Willy not natural born?  Bush?  Supposedly Bammy?  Which of those would any of us want for even another day?

I swear, the proclivity of people to miss the larger, deeper, and far more salient point in favor of noises never ceases to amaze me.  I have come to suspect that this behavior is willful and not the product of inability because I have noted the strong addiction of the vast majority to low-rent, penny ante drama.  It is like heroin addiction on near-fatal doses of Johnny Nucleo steroids.  I also believe that the demonstration of this can be seen in people's addiction to television, which is almost 100% dog-pile drama storytelling.

The one limitation I would make is that no matter where you were born, you must be a citizen and citizenship cannot be acquired one day less than 15 years after arrival.  That gives one time aplenty to become "American".  At that point, if you have not completely assimilated, people will know it and you would have no chance at high office.  What counts here is that you are a damned American and not an -American.  When you come here, you leave the world whence you came at the door to rot.  That, or turn the hell around and GTFO because you are not welcome.  This MUST be or else you end up like the $#@! holes known as Sweden, Germany, UK, France, and so forth.

For decades I have listened to $#@!s piled upon $#@!s who bleat the clapped out saw that "Americans have no culture".  BULL$#@!.  American culture, REAL American culture, is as fine as any gets.  Some bitterly and whingingly repine that Americans have no "sophistication" in their "so-called culture".  That is a lie.  What Americans used to lack was the dog-poo pretense of the jackass European.  Ours was a simple and direct culture based on everything good in the Christian ethic largely devoid of the poisons of the Roman church.  Yes, we had our terrible faults, treated the Indians with terrible injustice, and so on, but that was almost entirely GOVERNMENT-sourced evil.  Funny, that... is it not?

It is the average European who is full of baloney with his false "sophistication" that was built on two millennia worth of blood-soaked tyranny, a reality that continues to this very day.  It is the European whose mind is so hopelessly poisoned with the false promises and other lies of Empire that he has regressed centuries into the darkness of totalitarian collectivism, thinking himself so fortunate and his masters so clever that he is able to get all manner of stuff for "free".  Idiot jackass!  But I once again digress, as is my poor habit.

Let anyone from anywhere be president so long as they have become a citizen and know that any misstep against the public trust will earn them the noose, their carcass to be tossed into the wild to poison the coyotes.  Couple that with the clearly defined principles of what it means to be American - to be a FREE MAN - and put in such a form that is taught to every child from kindergarten through post-graduate school.  Make it the central pillar of existence as an American such that no man will have the excuse of ignorance, and enforce it against "leaders" with a singularly swift and unequivocal viciousness and 99.9% of our problems would vanish almost in an instant.

Going on about this natural born thing and what the Framers meant is a fool's errand.

----------


## Jan2017

> . . . Going on about this natural born thing and what the Framers meant is a fool's errand.


I'd blame it on McCain -
he was using the intent of the Constitution to claim eligibility since 2000.
He was questioned about this running against George W in 2000 in Iowa,
and it probable came up when he threatened to be considered to run as Kerry's VP in 2004.

By the intent to bar Foreigners as being ineligible forever, from day one - McCain would still claim eligibility though.
As much as he is hated, he was not a Foreigner - maybe committed treason by his 32 tapes made for the Viet Cong,
"but you do what you have to do to stay alive, nobody would fault that . . . but there is a limit"

McCain had the problem that he was not eligible by the letter of the law being born outside the USA even if he was not a foreigner,
some voters nullified him.

Obama had met the "letter of the law" by being born in Honolulu a couple years after Hawai'i became a state,
from both _Honolulu Advertiser_ birth record and eventually a birth certificate, and then a certification by the Governor of the State.
If he was born in Kenya there was no preponderance of evidence to overturn a Governor certification.
Obama would probably - ok certainly - been a Foreigner by the intent of the framers, imho.

Now, TrusTed Cruz wants the voters - and maybe eventually the courts - to ignore both the "letter of the law" and the "intent of the law"
regarding Presidential eligibility - he was born outside the USA and had Foreign citizenship even if dual citizenship by his mommy.

Heck of a mountain Cruz wants to climb, eh  . . . ?

----------


## TommyJeff

> So John Jay's children would be considered "foreigners" and ineligible to become president- even if they are kids of one of the more famous of the Founding Fathers.


why does it matter who their father was, if they dont fit the definition? (were his kids not born until after the Constitution?  (I dont know his family history)

its about the citizenship status required to be president (different from the status required to be a citizen), these limitations aren't unique to being president.  A 19 year old cannot run for Senate, but he can be a citizen of the US at that time.   Cruz and Rubio arent natural born citizens, period.

----------


## erowe1

> why does it matter who their father was, if they dont fit the definition?


They do fit the definition precisely because of who their father was.




> Cruz and Rubio arent natural born citizens, period.


When did they become citizens then?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

It doesn't matter.  You are all wasting your breath on this subject.  The goons don't care about "laws" and don't follow "laws".  This is all you need to know...

----------


## TommyJeff

> They do fit the definition precisely because of who their father was.


no.  Not because of who their father "was".  It was about the citizenship of the father.  Not "who" he was. 






> When did they become citizens then?


a natural born citizen is different than a citizen. You should know that if you're even posting in this subject.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> no.  Not because of who their father "was".  It was about the citizenship of the father.  Not "who" he was. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a natural born citizen is different than a citizen. You should know that if you're even posting in this subject.


There are two kinds of citizens.  Those who attain citizenship at birth (natural born) and those who have to go through a process to attain it (naturalized citizens).

----------


## TommyJeff

> There are two kinds of citizens.  Those who attain citizenship at birth (natural born) and those who have to go through a process to attain it (naturalized citizens).


Where is this "process"?  Congress can determine citizenship but no where it says there is a process required.   I also don't see where the limit of 2 forms of citizenship is listed.

----------


## Zippyjuan

What other types are there?  The Constitution lists two and gives Congress the power to set the process of Naturalization- naturalization requiring a process to those not born citizens while "natural born" being granted at birth.

----------


## Snowball

Cruz is not a natural born American and is not eligible for the Presidency.
He was a Canadian citizen until recently. He was born in Canada to a
Cuban father and American mother but was a Canadian citizen at birth.

Cruz cannot be President. Not natural-born.
NaturalIZED is not natural born.

END OF STORY.

----------


## TommyJeff

> What other types are there?  The Constitution lists two and gives Congress the power to set the process of Naturalization- naturalization requiring a process to those not born citizens while "natural born" being granted at birth.


It says a uniform rule, not a process.  If congress were to say people born within the USA boarders, not subject to the USA jurisdiction, with non-American parents are citizens.....that would be naturalization. 

If if a child is born in the USA, subject to its jurisdiction, to American parents - that's natural born.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Cruz is not a natural born American.


100% correct.  He's not eligible for president but he can stay in the senate. 
He won't have my vote

----------


## PAF

*Publius Huldah - Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained*

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...zen-explained/

----------

