Skip to comments.4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
Posted on 01/10/2010 6:03:15 PM PST by STE=Q
Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a natural born citizen is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
Lets cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the he says, she says, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of natural born citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
New-York, 25th July, 1787
Permit me to hint whether it would not be WISE and seasonable to provide a STRONG CHECK to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a Natural Born Citizen. (Emphases Mine)
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay Letters:
Now the question arises as to what would have been the best "STRONG CHECK" to the admission of foreigners into the administration of the incipient national government of Jay's time?
It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question.
A Very Important Article for all to read, especially Glenn Beck and O’Reilly who believe this is no big deal!..(o_O)
This refutes the argument of those who maintain that Vattel doesn’t amount to anything. It is woven into SCOTUS precedent.
Just curious: Did the Founding Fathers exempt themselves from this or did they declare themselves US (vs. English) citizens at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War?
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,
Article II, Section 5. I think this answers your question.
They “GRANDFATHERED THEMSELVES IN:
“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;...”
The issue was dealt with thusly:
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'
I have never heard if the first seven Prsidents (Martin Van Buren, #8, being the first to be born a US citizen) specifically declared US Citizenship.
Nice. Maybe those cowards at SCOTUS will take it up soon. I know Leo and Pidgeon are trying DC Circuit through quo warranto.
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;
Justice Joseph Story, also founder of Harvard Law School, in his works of Volume 3, Section 1472-73 of The Founders Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution originally published in 1833 writes of the qualifications of those who wish to attain election into the executive branch as laid out in A2 S1 C5 of the constitution:
§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigor, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.
§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe.
Got it, thank you!
Where's the BC?
Till yer boyee answers that, stuff the frog up!
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term 'natural born citizen' to any other category than 'those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof'."
What’s interesting to me is the heavy reliance on the foreign Vattel by the SCOTUS when only recently Americans were screeching about the Supreme Court justices even acknowledging the merest whiffs of foreign law.
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.