"Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president"
Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
Here's the deal...
Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
EXACTLY! Case closed.
I've given this example myself. I often use a head of the communist party in China is hear visiting. Wife, has a child while here on a two week visit. Takes the kid home and raises him as a loyal communist. According to BRET and others on this board that kid can come back to the US, live here for 14 years and be elected president at age 35.
If you believe that was the intent of the founders then you are beyond hope.
“to pose my other standard question, do you seriously believe that after 8 years of revolutionary war against Britain, that the Founders would put a requirement in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British subject to become President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the US Military?”
Yes, I do seriously believe that. I don’t just believe it, I know it for an absolute fact. For that is the clear and uncontroversial meaning of the Grandfather Clause.
“That’s why the clause was written the way it was. Loyalty was considered and easily proven.”
But that only applied to those who fit under the grandfather clause, correct?
"Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president"
What didn’t exist prior to the establishment of the Constitution was the U.S.
Speaking more of what you don't know?
The U.S. and the nation that existed under the Articles of the Confederation—which was called what, the American Confederacy?—are not one.
No, dumb ass, the U.S. existed prior to the current Constitution.
And if you knew what you were talking about you would know this...The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
And they are the same. The new Constitution was undertaken, and written, to address the deficiencies of the Articles.
I love how birthers so casually and regularly appeal to natural versus positive law, and then when you try and actually parse what qualifies for each they can’t condescend to respond. it’s as if even to shoot me down, if they can, would be to sully the good name of nature.
I love how after-birthers try and manipulate the conversation and go about crying "I won" when they've done no such thing.
Hey Bret, what about the brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate and selective service record?
“So Madison, et. al., didn’t know what they were doing when they specified ‘natural born’ for president and in no other instance? That just slipped by them when they really meant ‘just plain ol’ citizen’”
Ugh, I do so hate having to repeat arguments over and over, ad nauseum. I never said they didn’t know what they were doing. They meant to specify that only born citizens shall be president, and they did. No, they did not mean “plain ol’ citizen.” That would include naturalized citizens, and since they aren’t born citizens they cannot be natural born citizens.
“If you believe that was the intent of the founders then you are beyond hope.”
Bingo. They are beyond hope. To them, being a Natural Born US Citizen is a magical pixie dust phenomena conferred by a certain type of dirt. The idea that being raised by US citizens creates a different type of citizen than being raised by non-US citizens is incomprehensible to them.
After all, what does it matter if a candidate thinks there are 58 states or a hundred? Why should a candidate know enough about the US Marines to avoid calling them ‘corpsemen’? Why would a POTUS need even a rudimentary grasp of our Memorial Day celebration [during which Obama saw ghosts in the audience]? The very idea that a candidate should cover his heart during the National Anthem—as opposed to making an uber-creepy crouch cradle w his fingers—is stupid. As long as the candidate assures us he’s a Citizen of the World, that should be enough.
Right?
‘Beyond hope’ is the only possible explanation. Sad but true.
PS: Before anyone says Obama was raised by a US citizen, explain what country his Indonesian tranny nanny swore loyalty to. Also, which US citizen was it who gave Obama that dog meat he took such care to tell us about? Yeah, he was raised by US citizens all right. After all, he dedicated his autobiography to the American side of his family, didn’t he? That alone tells us how undying his loyalty to his adoptive country [he himself even admitted he was a Brit citizen at birth] he is.
Philman, you are disgracefully rude. What brings you to this forum when you can't display even a minimal level of respect for another freeper?
Look at how many times Politicians tried to alter or change the Natural Born Citizen clause from the time BO was first a candidate in Chicago to the time he was elected to the White House....
When is someone who's a "citizen of the United States at birth" ever an alien? In the womb?
Ummm...key words there...at birth.
If that child in the womb is aborted were they ever even a citizen or an alien?
Those running for office themselves couldn't have been "natural born" citizens as their parents were not US citizens at their births.
Email: katyricalde@yahoo.com (Katy Ricalde @ Fox News. From the ORYR site)
https://twitter.com/#!/BretBaier (Bret Baier's twitter account)
https://twitter.com/#!/SRGrapevine (Bret Baier's Special Report Grapevine)
http://www.bretbaier.com/contact/index.php
Email: special@foxnews.com (Special Report with Bret Baier. From fair.org)
Some suggestions to give them:
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
Synopsis: Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.” Id., at 167-68.
In the House of Representatives
John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become 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. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
Being born with two (or more) allegiances contradicts the known definition and the intent for the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the commander of the armed forces.
Or, simply asked them:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
“And the children are made citizens through that section of naturalization law!”
Yes, and therefore the law applies to them. What about that could possibly be confusing you?
“The children weren’t citizens until they were born and the parents never were citizens to begin with else they wouldn’t be called aliens!”
Your point being? Are you trying to say something about the status of the children between conception and birth, or what? When they’re born is when it becomes of interest to us. At that point, if they qualify the law applies to them and they are citizens. Therefore, the law applies to citizens, and your arguments to the contrary are null.
“It can’t apply to citizens because it’s about aliens!”
Are you schizoid? This is a law about when the children of aliens can be considered citizens, and you just said the children are citizens when they’re born. How can you argue now somehow that it’s about aliens and doesn’t apply to citizens? You just said it does. I don’t get it.
“It doesn’t say “Citizens and Nationality” does it?”
We’ve established the particular section is called “nationals and citizens from birth,” or something. You’re referring to that section falling under the larger title “Aliens and Nationality,” I believe. What’s the point, here? That it says “aliens,” therefore it must apply only to aliens, case closed? As if what comes under the title “Aliens and Nationality” couldn’t possibly concern citizenship.
Well, might I remind you that the U.S. is a nation, and if you are born a citizen of the U.S. that is your nationality. So the “nationality” part, at least, means it can apply to citizens.
Or at least as long as the Constitution lasts. Which may not be a hell of a lot longer.
Just answer the question. You claim that anyone whose status is governed by 8 USC is an alien first. Yet § 1401 describes who is a citizen at birth. So: when--for what period of their life--is someone who's a "citizen at birth" an alien?
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.