Posted on 04/27/2012 8:24:47 AM PDT by vadum
According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nation’s chief executive.
How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.
For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.
Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot. Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!
Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.
Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.
Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.
John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
I wonder if this thread will get any posts.
/s
Ah, so this is why the feckless republicans have allowed little barry bastard to negate the founders’ declarations and defy the Constitution: the treacherous Republicans planned to do the same thing when it suited them to do so. And which of the two socialist/commie parties are you working for, vadumb?
Well, that pretty much captures the simple-minded view.
..but, but, but... we’ve been told that some Frenchman at the time of the founding defined Natural Born as both Citizen parents and Domestic birth and that French law should apply here.
Actually, Rubio has another technicality that could help him above even that argument. Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war. There is a case to be made that they did have protectorate citizenship.
I am curious about another issue though. The big argument on NBC is regarding ‘dual allegiance’. How does this apply to Native Americans. ‘Tribes’ (they are called Nations) have a special place under US law in which they have their own governments and can establish their own laws, etc. I’m both a Natural Born US Citizen as well as a ‘citizen’ of the Citizen Band Pottawatomie Nation. Would someone consider this ‘dual allegiance’?
To get more to the point of what the founder’s intended in the Constitution, I would do a simple test. At the age of 18, could the person in question have chosen to become a citizen of a country other than the United States? As a matter of law that person could have divided loyalties.
I may be wrong, but I believe that Rubio could not have become a citizen of Cuba at the age of majority.
But all that aside, the Dems have trumped the citizenship issue for any candidate until 0bama is declared an unlawful President. Because he clearly had the right to citizenship in another country by right of birth. Hell, me may still have the right to do so.
If Rubio would be a citizen were there no laws making him one, then and only then would he be a natural born citizen. That's what 'natural' means.
"Natural born" as in "vaginal born" not Cesarean Section, right?
Stupid me.
I didn’t know Human Events was so uninformed and a bunch of liars.
I need not spend my short life reading anything from them again.
And if Zak is monitoring this thread, how about these two individuals, both my sons, and both quite clear in their understanding that while they might be citizens-by-birth, they are NOT NBCs.
1. Born in Jakarta, Indonesia, US Citizen father, non-US Citizen mother, 1977
2. Born in Boulder, Colorado, US Citizen father, non-US CItizen mother, 1979
But since both were granted citizenship at the moment of their births due to the circumstances of their births, they are NBCs - according to Zak.
My question to Zak is, therefore, by what mechanism, other than by statute, would US citizenship have devolved upon them?
Really? And what "French law" exactly?
“Who is this IGNORANT idiot. Maybe he should read a book, or just google NBC before he embarrasses himself with this article.”
He already did.
If Barack Hussein is considered NBC, and serving, and not deposed by congress or SCOTUS, with Kenyan citizenship of his father, then Rubio is also NBC.
My problem with Rubio is not his NBC status in 2012, it is NEE. (not enough experience)
“Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war.”
If that isn’t a strech!!!!!
No evidence that he comprehended any of it, though.
Neither Obama, Rubio, nor Romney are eligible.
Now THAT is a very interesting question. It seems to me that tribal “sovereignty” is superseded whenever something important (e.g. tax revenue etc.) is at stake.
For example, in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (SCOTUS, 2005) the court looked at a case in which the tribe imposed its own tax on gasoline sales and had sued to block collection of the state tax.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court held that the Kansas tax is “nondiscriminatory” and “poses no affront to the [Potawatomi] nation’s sovereignty.”
Guy was referencing Vattel, who wrote about civil law, which was based on old Roman law.
The US Constitution and US laws in general are based rather in common law, an almost entirely separate code based on centuries of English judicial decisions.
The common law definition of how one becomes a citizen is quite different from the civil law definition.
IMO the Founders intended the normal, common law definition of legal terms unless they explicitly state otherwise.
Rubio the globalist ?
He sounds polished and smooth, but...
Rubio Praises U.N., World Bank, IMF for Not Asserting ‘Narrow American Interests’
Search the web for the above story...
I’ll make a post of it.
I would not vote for him for any office he ran for.
He’s simply building his “Senate career” in his personal pursuit of the Presidency.
In many if not most cases, you would be a “citizen by statute” in other words a “naturalized” citizen.
Unless you were born in the continental United States, your “Natural Born” status is in question. Alaska & Hawaii could be a problem depending on WHEN you were born. In Obama’s case, WHERE was he born.
The citizenship and naturalization laws are complex regarding territories etc. Many people THINK they know all about it, they are wrong!
If you study this for awhile as I have, you will realize, “you don't know, what you don't know”.
Not really. Rubio's parents were born in 1927 and 1931 in Cuba, however Cuba during that era, was a US Protectorate from 1901-1934 under the Platt Amendment.
It may not be a 'bingo there is the answer' but it does give a different legal foothold.
First, JC Fremont wasn’t elected.
Second, if memory serves me correctly, Chester Arthur burned his records shortly before his death, “cleverly” concealing a lot of things from posterity.
Out here on what Mr Zak calls “the fringe,” there those of us who believe there are three kinds of citizen:
1) naturalized, (foreign born)
2) natural, (born in USA, parents maybe or maybe not citizens)
and;
3) natural born, (both parents citizens at time of birth, whether naturalized or natural)
If that is not so, there was no reason to differentiate the categories within the Constitution.
The left will man the ramparts defending obama. If the right elects a president with the exact same qualifications, in regard to his birth, they will attack unmercifully until the “usurper” is deposed. They will never admit to the hypocrisy of their position, and they will never relent.
To use Zak’s logic, one of the Chinese anchor babies, born on a maternity tourism jaunt to the good ol’ US of A, then raised in Communist China would make a dandy president.
Much as what happened with the current occupant of 1600 Penn’a Ave, Wash DC, except he was raised in Indonesia of Communist parents.
Were your parents citizens when you were born? (I am assuming they were probably born here as well, being so-called “Native” Americans).
Then you are a natural born citizen. Indian, Native American, Hindu, Flat Earther, doesn't matter. Born in the U.S. to U.S. citizens, you are a “Natural Born” citizen”
That and/or the writer is an example of what happens when the progressives/socialists/liberals, unions, etc. take over the school system.
What the hack propagandist is saying is NOT what was taught in middle school as late as the early 70s. What else have they gotten wrong and then taught us and our kids?
“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.
It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.
Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”
~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967
He and obama are NOT NBC.
LLS
Well, that pretty much captures the simple-minded view.
Yup, In the words of Richard “Bull” Moll on ‘Night Court’, “I only have 2 functional brain cells”.
Sorry, I made a mistake, Swiss, not French. The Laws of Nations was a given set of laws in Europe at the time that those nations, specifically the English, used as almost a baseline for their own interactions.
US Law however, is based on Common Law, not the “Laws of Nations” which was an old offshoot of Roman Law (if my memory of the history of it is correct).
If such was the case, why the need for the 14th amendment???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
Yes and Yes, however, I’ve seen the argument that any dual allegiance makes one not NBC as that is the ‘foundation’ of why they had it.
I don't think that's accurate. I think his mother became a citizen before his birth. It was his father there are questions about. His father, though, had been an immigrant. Had returned to Cuba apparently due to the instability and revolution, and apparently with the intent of getting his wife (wife-to-be?) to the US. He accomplished that.
He then did appear before the authorities for immigration well after he'd lived here for 2 years. He then accepted various jobs in various locations as an acceptable immigrant and as a Cuban refugee, based on that law as well.
He would have met the requirements for citizenship of the original immigration and citizenship law if he had lived under that first law in the 1790s.
So, if we're going to apply a 1700s definition of "natural born", then we must also apply the first law of the 1790s (1793, I think), to his case.
Had the same situation applied in Rubio's case in the 1790's, there would have been no denying Rubio's natural born citizen status. Both parents had gone before the authorities after two years residence and indicated their desire to be here. Rubio had been born prior to that in the US.
I have no problem with Rubio as a candidate. Jindal, on the other hand, was not born to citizen parents.
If your neighbor steals a case of beer from your local “Stop & Rob”, does that mean it is legal for you to do so?
IMO the Founders intended the normal, common law definition of legal terms unless they explicitly state otherwise.
Well, then, General, can you cite a common law definition of "natural born citizen" that dates from the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
Understood, and Vattels writing is not "French law"
The US Constitution and US laws in general are based rather in common law, an almost entirely separate code based on centuries of English judicial decisions.
Not sure that is true.
I wonder if this thread will get any posts
____________________________________________________________
Well, I’m posting. And, while I’m here I’ll say that I’m so glad to hear some common sense reasoning on this subject for a change. You learn to recognize the NBC fanatics on here and ignore their posts w/o even reading them. (NBC = Natural Born Citizen.)
It’s certainly an interesting point. But I wonder if citizens of U. S. protectorates were ever free to migrate to any of the continental United States. They certainly weren’t permitted other citizenship privileges—like voting.
Turn loose of your bitterness man. It will kill you. Holding on to bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for your enemy to die.
I think this is an appeal to Scottish Law.
“Rubio’s parents were born in 1927 and 1931 in Cuba”
*******************IRRELEVANT**************
Were they U.S. citizens when Marco was BORN? They were not, THAT is what is relevant.
Answer: yes, he could have become a citizen of Cuba at age 18.
RE: First, JC Fremont wasn’t elected.
I think the author’s point was that the founders of the GOP ( including Lincoln ) did not find Fremont’s birth circumstances to be a constitutional barrier to his becoming President of the USA.
Bingo!
It should not be surprising that within Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added) Notice the plural use for parentage.
This was based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance. The position being that if a person whose father was born outside the country and the son inside the country it would put the son in a position of dual allegiance between his birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication is that if circumstances placed the country at odds with the country of a president’s father the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against a nation that he has a direct relationship with. How could a man expect to defend against or wage war with the country of his father?
Which brings us to the issue at hand – how do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” As the Constitution is the basis of our law and is law in and of itself we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest contention in determining the meaning as the term is not used in general language today, outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, so it is of little use.
Second; should the “plain meaning” not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners
Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." (Emphasis added)
From the Federalist Papers:
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into proper context:“THIS WILL NOT, OF COURSE, INCLUDE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS ACCREDITED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT WILL INCLUDE EVERY OTHER CLASS OF PERSONS.”
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their native country.
I read further than I wanted, but definitely stopped at:
“...The Constitution says that the status of parents is irrelevant....”
The Blackstone definition is for “subject,” of course, since that was the English common law equivalent of “citizen.” But it is basically jus solis, determination by location of birth, not by parentage.
Blackstone: 1765
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
There have been a number of Supreme Court decision with peripheral bearing on the issue, but none are definitive. In particular, the 14th Amendment may have altered the meaning of the terms used in the original constitution.
Personally I wish the Court would take such a case and just define the term. That is exactly what the Court should do, clarify ambiguous points in what the Constitution really means.
“Natural born” as in “vaginal born” not Cesarean Section, right?
_____________________________________________________________________
ROFLOL..... I love it. But, now, you have all the NBC fanatics confused.
Bull. Nothing but revisionist history. His explanation had nothing to do with the context of the Constitution. Only people who have never read The Federalist Papers and the Founders' letters would believe this.
Read my tagline. Will not vote for the ineligible Rubio, or the ineligible Obama.
Rubio helps seal Obama’s lack of NBC status issue. We need people that shun CFR and globalist UN agenda. It will only get worse after their summer global warming conference.
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.