Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
From various members of the 1st Congress debating the 1790 Naturalization Act. (Note Jackson's use of Blackstone, and the other's use of British law.):
Mr. Jackson.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners. Representative James Jackson, Georgia, Officer during Revolution in State Militia, delegate to provincial Congress and to State Convention.
Mr. Burke....The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.Aedanus Burke, South Carolina, who had been an officer in the Continental Army.
Mr. Hartley observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that have been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.Rep Thomas Hartley, Pennsylvania, Continental Army Officer, Delegate to Provincial Congress, Delegate to Ratification Convention
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.
He will fill out paperwork in every state providing proof of citizenship and a statement under penalty of perjury that he is over 35 years of age and a Natural Born Citizen.
By his affirmation under oath he will have presented a prima facie case for eligibility. If anyone attempts to challenge his eligibility, then the burden would fall upon them.
Any reasonable doubt as to his eligibility would be resolved in favor of Ted Cruz. This is first year law school stuff. Didn't you learn that when you were in Law School?
Thanks for posting this as it shows the brilliance of the founders and framers for adding those three words....."Natural Born Citizen".
At the urging of John Jay, Washington was advised to make the presidency immune from any possible foreign influence....and you have just made everyone aware.... of an excellent reason for it. Born of the soil.....born of the blood.
Great post!
Obama will NEVER be declared ineligible.
NEVER.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but that’s all it is, a personal opinion. I’m sure that there will be a myriad of court decisions and state election board rulings on Senator Cruz’ eligibility, if he decides to run, just as there have been more than 300 such rulings on Obama’s natural born citizenship eligibility.
There are very few Americans who are going to buy that a newborn infant or a four year old (his age when Ted Cruz moved to the U.S.) has allegiance to anything other than a mother’s breast.
We have a recent real life example: did Panama Canal Zone-born John Mc Cain qualify for presidential electoral votes as a natural born citizen or was his birth outside the United States disqualifying?
President Chester A. Arthur’s father William Arthur became a naturalized citizen of the United States when Chester was 14 years old.
Rhodes v. MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Purpura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
You asked me what I thought, and then say ‘Nope.’ - you need help.
The nope meant I didn’t think you dealt honestly with the question.
A real life example: in 2007, Barack Obama signed a notarized statement attesting to the fact that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Here’s a link to that statement:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/11107727
Obama’s eligibility was then challenged in Arizona Superior Court in Tucson. Here’s a link to the court’s ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
In 2012, an Arizona Tea Party Group asked Arizona Secretary of State Bennett to check Obama’s eligibility before allowing him to be on the Arizona ballot. Secretary of State Bennett requested and received a Letter of Verification from the Hawaii state Registrar of Vital Statistics. Here’s a link to that letter:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
The simple fact is that 1795 Act is a "Naturalization Act", not an act about NBC. The act as named would only cover naturalization. It doesn't mean that they consider the reference to NBC in the 1790 Act to be incorrect.
Add to that, if indeed NBC was an unambiguous term used by the Founders, than a statute of any kind about NBC would not need to be mentioned.
I believe what we do know about the definition of NBC at that time is that children of citizens born overseas were considered NOT to have conflicting loyalties.
claiming NBC status does not automatically give you the benefit of the doubt. that’s hilarious
If you file for the presidency and provide evidence of having met the qualifications, then someone has to challenge you, right?
Otherwise, you march forward.
Now, where would you challenge them. In a court of law? So, they are the defendant in a trial.
According to the law are they to be presumed innocent or presumed guilty?
So, then, you have to PROVE them illegal. They don’t have to prove themselves legal.
the Constitution wasn’t written for the high priests to interpret. anyone that tries to toss a blizzard of bs is obviously worried the truth might get exposed.
again:
—
if the point of adding ‘natural born’ to A2S1 was to insure anyone assuming the office would not have split allegiances, at least by birth. this is stated by the founders.
if, upon birth, a person can be a citizen of 2 countries, either by birth parents or location, then that would introduce the possibility of split allegiance... which the founders were expressly looking to avoid.
therefore, a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives.
—
you can toss more references if you like, gawd knows there’s been plenty of progressives trying to change the definition lately. but it won’t change the meaning and intent as laid down by the founders.
it’s called a burden of proof... not a burden of i-don’t-think-you’re-eligible. put up the documents that show you had no possible allegiances at birth... thereby being a natural born citizen of the United States... and all is good.
and yea... that’s called adhering to the Constitution. it’s tough to claim to want the job of top executor, yet not follow the founding document.
and btw, no division of elections collects any paperwork proving eligibility to assume the office of the president. the ‘qualifying papers’ they’re supposed to collect does indicate ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’... but they all glaze over that.
i’d personally say they are negligent in their duties... but when you start to go down that road, you get a nasty call from the governors attorney. not saying it dissuaded me... just saying it happens as they try to cover their own ass
personally, i was hoping 0bama had submitted his paper work somewhere. then we’d have him on felony forgery. but nope... never filed officially anywhere. just filled out paper work, a personal testament, and $20. how that’s supposed to keep bad actors out is beyond me
I hear you. I guess I’m a bit of a dreamer, then.
Obama is the president. Get over it.
who? 0bama you say? who is that?
i know of a barry soetoro that was the legal name of an adopted child... but there is no documentation of a barry 0bama.
do you have a social security number we can use to look him up?
**************************
And that's the rub.
> “Cruz is a natural born citizen.”
> “The truth is that a mother is an easier proof of lineage than is a father.”
Yes, but you’re just making that up for your own opinion, it is not an interpretation of any existing law or judicial work.
My post said that what we need is an updated law that more clearly distinguishes ‘natural born citizen’ from ‘citizen by birth’ because the original concern as described in John Jay’s letter to General George Washington was that the president as commander of the army and navy was in a position to become a tyrant, for example today by declaring martial law, and so allegiance and loyalty were paramount in that position. Thus, ‘natural born’ would be an added measure to assure allegiance and loyalty. An updated law or an amendment to existing law can be made retroactive.
We have no concern with Ted Cruz’s allegiance and loyalty but we do with Barack Obama.
The mistake was all the PhonyCon Liberal Obama Supporters who refused to make Obama Eligibility a major issue. Stop blaming conservative Americans for following the Constitution a major issue
It will be the Obama Supporters....not the eligibility folks....who will sandbag Cruz
That battle is over Sten, except as a historical footnote some day. I know it’s hard to acknowledge, but we never really had a case that could be proved.
You’re talking integrity versus law.
For the sake of integrity, Obama should have come clean with all relevant records or lack thereof. I agree with that.
For the sake of law, if he stays silent someone else has to make a case and prove it.
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.