Posted on 01/16/2016 12:34:18 AM PST by RC one
The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens†was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,†as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.
As Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declared: “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 ….†(Italics added) A loophole for themselves, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote 46 years later, was created “out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
the times may change as they will but the constitution requires an amendment vote to change.
originally, it was the soil.
Natural born is not exactly the same as native born. In fact some think it was a translation error..of vattels work.
It could be, I don’t really know.
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,
He has quite clearly indicated that the terms Natural born and Native born are interchangeable as far as article II, section I, clause 5 is concerned.
If you care to back and reinterpret Vattels conversation with himself, he looks at natural born from two perspectives.
1st he illustrates what he recommends because that is the Swiss view.
He then illustrates what other countries are doing, which I believe if what the framers adopted. So if you are dead set about using Vattel as a source, you need to use both positions that he mistakenly or intentionally mixes in the same chapter.
But whatever...
You are beating a dead horse. any suit will die as all the others have against Obama, and already one against Cruz. I seriously doubt that SCOTUS will EVER rule on this. Not enough people are affected and it has been applied in the way I explained it.
Other than Lawrence Tribe, a moonbat lefty and the moonbat press and a few bloggers, this issue had gone away. It will go away again. So, that's enough of this... Exit stage right.
Native is more akin to birthright.
I am not saying that the principle is invalid. I am saying that I have never believed it was what they intended. I believe the intent was to delineate Natural born as a status that travels from father to son, and not from the land.
But it does not matter as I have pulled the ejection seat lever.
5-4-3-2-1..........poof!
Oh sure, right. If Cruz were born in TX and Trump was born in Scotland, you’d post your heart out to prove Trump was a NBC.
Sure.
Right.
Hahaha.
I did not say I would post my heart out. I said I would argue the point in favor of Trump and I would then qualify it by saying he will not be getting my vote regardless but this was not the reason why.
ha!......last time I saw you it was Ebola nonsense...
Must be a theme....
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
James Madison
Place. i.e. Jus Soli, native, Born in the USA and not in Canada
"It is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country...were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Likewise, applying jus sanguinis ('right of the blood') to the Natural Born Citizen clause without jus soli ('right of the soil') leads to an equally absurd extreme. People born and raised all over the world to U.S. citizens could be president, while people born and raised in America would be ineligible due to having one or more foreign parents.
This is obviously not what was intended.
A new born patriot could be temporarily on another's soil at birth but the son of a jus Solis who has transferred their status as natural born. "by blood"
I don't think there is a solution to this in the past as it is clear that they did not even agree at the time, which probably explains why little was said about it when they wrote it. They had bigger fish to fry and did not want to get hung up on minutia.
Let's leave it unsolved because it cannot be solved today, tomorrow or likely at any time...
I have other fish to fry as well.
CH: “Likewise, applying jus sanguinis (’right of the blood’) to the Natural Born Citizen clause without jus soli (’right of the soil’) leads to an equally absurd extreme. People born and raised all over the world to U.S. citizens could be president, while people born and raised in America would be ineligible due to having one or more foreign parents.”
This of course is the reason the requirement for the Presidency included a residency of 14 years prior to election. My opinion from clear reading of the constitution is that “jus sanguine” is the proper interpretation of natural born. It seems likely that the framers would have used the term “native born” if that was what was intended.
Citizenship of both parents would define an NBC in my opinion if you read the Constitution from an originalist standpoint. I think there have been some rulings since the founding of the Constitution that are suspect and US vs. Wong Kim Ark is very circumspect in this regard.
Right, but logically it has to be both not one or the other because otherwise the purpose of avoiding divided loyalty would be defeated.
‘ha!......last time I saw you it was Ebola nonsense...
Must be a theme....’
Your memory needs a tune up. That wasn’t me.
You are clearly prepared to bend yourself in any manner necessary to support your conclusion.
In providing the Courts final decision oin the case, Justice Gray repeatedly affirms that citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship are derived from place of birth.
Here are a few examples:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
And:
Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,
And:
Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions, that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term "citizenship."
Garder v. Ward (1805), 2 Mass. 244, note. And again:The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.
This line is particularly useful for those who argue that there were no NBC at the time of the adoption of the constitution:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.
Mr. Binney, in his paper above cited, after a critical examination of the statute and of the early English cases, concluded:
And this next line is especially damaging to your reasoning.
There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.
AZ State Rep Calls For Constitutional Convention On Cruz Birth Issue
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3384579/posts
Further down I suggested a modest constitutional amendment [easier and, with rapid communications, also faster than a convention ...]
‘...amend that English-speaking parents with Canadian citizenship also help qualify natural born status. Why not? It’s not some radical Islamo-nut nation like Indonesia after all. Even Quebec is not so bad either.’
Cruz should not turn too openly for such a process. It would make him look weak. But this is a good way to flush out who wants to use rules and process to disqualify him.
RC, if you are expecting me to kowtow to those case examples, it’s not going to happen. Everyone with my opinion believes that case to be badly decided.
Which is why I used the dissent..!
There is affirmation in dicta and somewhat related case law for both sides of this and that goes all the way back to the founding and the insertion of the term, natural born.
Unfortunately for you, the dissenting opinion is irrelevant. The assenting opinion is clear and our country has evolved around that opinion for over 100 years. there’s no going back now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.