</sarcasm>
We are doomed!
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.
Thanks!
I agree wholeheartedly. Jindal, while a nice guy and a US citizen, is not eligible for the presidency. As near as I can tell, he was actually born a citizen of India.
Rubio, othoh, was born a citizen of the US to parents who had been a long time established in the US. One was a US citizen, and the other had not only sought asylum and had no country to return to but had also sought official immigration status. FWIW, that would have satisfied the citizenship law of 1793, imo, if we are going to apply 1790 legal understandings.
“If Barack Hussein is considered NBC....”
.
How can Idi Obama be considered a NBC if no one has seen an unedited BC?
Found this while searching, taking no credit myself.
FYI...Fremont’s parents were NOT married, thus he was born illegitimate & the father’s citizenship did NOT factor in. His mother was still married to Pryor(arranged marriage) at the time as Pryor refused to giver her a divorce. Fremont’s parents didn’t marry until the old geezer died in 1838 when Fremont was 20 years old.
Want to spread rumors, better be able to back them up with facts, not crap aka misinformation cut & pasted from drconspiracy or politjab.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2700_132/ai_108791284/
Fremont was born in Savannah, Ga., in 1813, the illegitimate son of Anne Beverley Whiting. She ran away flora a pressured marriage of convenience to elderly Major John Pryor and fell in love with a Frenchman named Jean Charles Fremon, who contemporary research suggests was a small-time politician from Quebec, Canada. Fremon possessed a number of skills, and he taught French at the esteemed William and Mary College and later at an exclusive school in Richmond, Va. He engaged in a series of secret trysts with Whiting and, when rumors of her infidelity turned into public facts, Fremon was forced to resign. Following an own confrontation with Pryor, the couple ran away together, eventually winding up in Savannah, where Charles was born. Although Anne’s family credentials went back to the American Revolution, she was virtually ostracized by the class-conscious southern society. She didn’t marry Fremon until Pryor died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Frémont
Frémont’s mother, Anne Beverley Whiting, was the youngest daughter of socially prominent Virginia planter Col. Thomas Whiting. The colonel died when Anne was less than a year old. Her mother married Samuel Cary, who soon exhausted most of the Whiting estate. At age 17 Anne married Major John Pryor, a wealthy Richmond resident in his early 60s. In 1810 Pryor hired Charles Fremon, a French immigrant who had fought with the Royalists during the French Revolution, to tutor his wife. In July 1811 Pryor learned that Whiting and Fremon were having an affair. Confronted by Pryor, the couple left Richmond together on July 10, 1811, creating a scandal that shook city society.[6] Pryor published a divorce petition in the Virginia Patriot, in which he charged that his wife had “for some time past indulged in criminal intercourse”. Whiting and Fremon moved first to Norfolk and later settled in Savannah, Georgia. Having recently inherited slaves valued at $1,900, Whiting financed the trip and purchase of a house in Savannah by their sale. When the Virginia House of Delegates refused Pryor’s divorce petition, it was impossible for the couple to marry. In Savannah Whiting took in boarders while Fremon taught French and dancing. On January 21, 1813, their first child, John Charles Fremont, was born.[7] Their son was illegitimate, a social handicap which he overcame later with his marriage to the daughter of a powerful U.S. senator.
12 posted on 10/09/2010 6:05:29 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
You are in need of some self-directed research. While it is true that the English common law prevailed in the former colonies in most matters, it did NOT prevail in matters of citizenship.
Indeed, it could not, even in principle.
Citizenship, as it was understood in the newly free United States, was unknown in English common law. English common law, insofar as it touched on the matter, was based on the idea of subject-hood, not citizenship.
Of absolute necessity then, the Framers were forced to look elsewhere for guidance on such matters, and it was indeed Vattel to whom they turned.
I can understand your view of this, though I disagree with it. Your view stems from the fact that the words of the decision in the Minor case leave a hole that one can drive your interpretation through with ease. However, I would ask you to consider that the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" refers (IMHO) to one's status AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, and not later based on the actions of another person or persons. It would be (again, IMHO) logically absurd to have such a status be subject to change (similar to the logical absurdity of being "a little pregnant") - IOW, I view NBC status as either being the case or not, and once that matter is determined it holds forever.
Our disagreement would need to be decided by the Supreme Court, given the flaw (perhaps intentional?) in the way that Minor was written...provided that the federal courts even give anyone jurisdiction to litigate the matter.
While in general it may be true, I'm CERTAIN that it is not true with respect to citizenship, a concept that the English were bereft of in 1775. The Framers were quite explicit on the subject.
Being still married to Major John Pryor, wouldn’t that make HIM the “legal” father”
It is a given that the undefined terms in the Constitution are defined in the English Common Law
"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, ... and aliens, such as are born out of it. "
- Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
So apparently English Common Law doesn't differentiate between category 2 and 3 either.
Blackstone also says this:
"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien."
>> The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. <<
Come on, that was different. The Democrats certainly would never have challenged the standing of a Republican candidate back THEN. (/sarcasm)
as far as I jnow he didnt...
But his bigamous grandfather had renounced his US citizenship wshen he fled from the US with his many “wives” and children...
When he left the US it was for good choosing to live a life of sin in Mexico...
He did not intend to return nor live under the jurisdiction of US laws ever again...
The bigamy laws in the US would have caused him to be jailed..
decades later it was only a revolution in Mexico that caused some of the Romney family to enter the US as refugees...
They hid among about a 1,000 returnoing US citizens, none of them asked for ID or papers because of the circumstances...
The border officials just thoughtall of the 1,000 were US citizens just visiting Mexico..
However the Romneys were by then Mexican citizens..
When Mexican born George Romneyy ran for president in 1964 and 1968 there was a problem with his citizenship...
His lack of US citizenship was being discussed at the time..
He was beaten by both Barry Goldwater and Nixon so the inquiry into his eligibility for POTUS was not persued..
That sure seems to be the logic doesn’t it.
When we conservatives are happy to adopt “the end justifies the means”, why fight for any part of the Constitution? One is either a purist or an antagonist to the propriety of the Constitution.
I’m sorry, but your “reasoning” is fallacious, your references are unconvincing, and your conclusions distinctly diverge from historical reality. In other words, you are spouting the same nonsense as Zak.
Your point is well taken. LOL!
” a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien”
Anchor babies aside, that defintion fits precisely with our law saying a person (such as John McCain) born in another country to US citizen parents, is a NBC of the USA. It can not be both ways, one born is either a citizen of the country born in or not decible by parentage.
Wikipedia states that George Romney’s father did not relinquish his US citizenship. Do you have a source that says that he did so?
If grandma Romney left the US vowing never to return, but did not officially (whatever that means in the context of citizenship) renounce his citizenship, then he would have remained a US citizen. This means that George Romney was a citizen but not natural born, and therefore Mitt Romney, if he was born in the US, was a natural born citizen.
If George’s father renounced his US citizenship in a legally valid way, and George Romney never took on American citizenship, then Mitt Romney would be in exactly the same situation as Barack Obama and, as far as I can see, would be ineligible to be President.
The issue turns on whether George Romney’s father renounced his US citizenship in a way that was legally valid and was not a US citizen when George was born in Mexico.
Thank you for this discussion on citizenship. I’ve been truly wondering at the arguments on both sides of this issue. All of you have given me much to consider. I hope that all of us can truly adhere to the Constitution and the Founders’ intent wrt the ones we put into office.
I hope you didn't think I disagreed with that?
A natural citizen is one born on the soil of the nation to parents who were citizens thereof. No law has ever been needed to make such a person citizen, not in any culture or nation. That's why that class of citizenship is natural, as opposed to being a political decision.
There is not a single shred of evidence that George Romney's father EVER renounced his US citizenship. I think it is irresponsible to suggest that he did and then demand proof of a negative.
Moreover, it is my understanding that the various colonias that were established in Mexico during the 19th century by dissident religions and political sects from the Unties States were established under Mexico's direct edict that the residents of the colonias, and the children born there, would never become Mexican nationals or citizens (and there is a distinction between the two categories under Mexican law).
Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this topic:
In Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 21, Pages 250-251 (http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ), we see notes from Thomas Jefferson from December 1783.
The first question is
“Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?”
to which Thomas Jefferson begins his answer with
“Natural subjects can inherit–Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”
(In other words, dual nationality did not exist. Citizenship was singular.)
Thomas Jefferson also wrote this in his answer:
“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowledges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowledges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”
(So, in the context of these notes, an “alien” is an American citizen and not a British subject.)
The second question is
“Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?”
and Thomas Jefferson answers, before dealing with an objection,
“He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.”
(For the adult “alien” citizen son, the state of the British father does not descend to him, neither with respect to nationality/allegiance nor with respect to property.)
The third question is
“Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?”
Thomas Jefferson’s answer:
“1st. by the Common law.
We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult. But by the common law.”
(Thomas Jefferson wrote that there was “no middle character” between a “natural subject” and an “alien”. Further, he called the ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN son of the British subject an ALIEN who could not inherit from the British father. So, it stands to reason that Thomas Jefferson is calling the MINOR son of the British subject a NATURAL SUBJECT by the common law in following the state of the father, even though the minor son is in America following the Treaty of Paris, called the “treaty of peace” in Thomas Jefferson’s answer to Question 1.)
“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowledges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowledges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”
REMEMBER: In the context in which Jefferson was writing, alien = natural-born U.S. citizen (i.e., an alien to Great Britain).
</sarcasm>
We are doomed!
I agree with you. Natural born citizens are born on U.S. soil. There are no qualifiers on that like parents must have been natural born as well. Just NBC. PERIOD. That’s the way I read the Constitution. That also means that, except for diplomats, any illegal can have their baby here and that baby is considered NBC. There is a lot of hot blood on this forum who will plaster me but they are only expressing their opinions which have no basis in fact. I always say that opinions are like a$$holes - everybody has one. If Obummer can prove he was born in Hawaii with a ligit BC, then he is NBC. I wish people would get over it....expecially the guy that keeps saying, “even if he was born in the Lincoln Bedroom of the Whitehouse.....” Boy, I hope I don’t hear from him because that will be a long read.
I'm not sure if you read my post completely in which the above quote by Blackstone, was stated to be part of French and not English law.
Also, even if that statement was part of our law, then it wouldn't apply to John McCain since whether he is regarded as an alien in Panama is irrelevant to how he is treated under US law.
Were they U.S. citizens when Marco was BORN? They were not, THAT is what is relevant.
Condoning an illegal act by another in order to justify your own illegal act seems a little crooked, which is ok if you are a lawyer who doesn’t care one whit about the truth.
Rubio is certainly a 14th amendment citizen and a statutory citizen, but he is not a natural-born citizen as the Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment does not define nor redefine natural-born citizenship. It is defined as all children born in the country to parents who WERE its citizens ... not born to parents who BECAME its citizens. The court ruled that the 14th amendment made citizens of children born to resident aliens, the latter satisfying the subject clause through permanent residence and domicil. Obama, incidentally, meets neither definition, since his parents were not both citizens and did not have permanent residence and domicil in the United States.
THe fascinating thing about Emmerich de Vattel is the false notion that he was even discussing “natural born” citizenship at all.
De Vattel was describing “Les naturels.” Some have chosen to translate this as “Natural Born Citizen.” It means nothing of the sort, but rather “Indigenous peoples.”
On occasion, “Les indigens” might be used in French, but this can have a connotation of non-Westerners in nations colonized by Westerners; I’d translate “les indigens” as “natives”; one would not call one’s own countrymen “natives” or “les indigens.”
In de Vattel’s world, if you were French, but both of your parents were Bohemians, you were Bohemian, not French. The founding fathers were defying that notion, not confirming it; if you were born in America of parents who were under U.S. law (as opposed to being aliens), you are an American. The intent of this law was to prevent citizens of European colonizing empires from moving to America and becoming president.
So the reference isn’t to “les naturels,” but to the Thomistic doctrines of natural law, which state that all men have, by nature, a nation of their own. Their nation is theirs by virtue of being natural-born, or being naturalized. Since there is no precedent in American statute, or any expression of natural law, of anyone being naturalized in a country despite being born under that country’s law (without having taken actions to renounce that citizenship, or to assume another nation’s citizenship), there is no case for asserting that someone may be a citizen by being born in a country, without being a natural-born citizen of that country.
(Statutes may exist to clarify citizenship or establishing that a territory is under U.S. law for the purposes of determining citizenship, but no-one has ever been ‘naturalized’ through such statutes.)
See #109. Blackstone's Commentaries was published about 20 years before the adoption of the Constitution.
Not relevant unless the person chooses not to be a US citizen.
There are countries that have weird laws granting citizenship to natural born Americans, depending on such conditions as having a grandparent of their nationality. However, these foreign laws are of no consequence as to the eligibility of natural born Americans. Obama is an example: because his father was Kenyan, he could have claimed Kenyan citizenship. But he didn't.
Vattel was referring to natural citizenship at birth. It stands to reason why this would be translated as natural-born citizens. Vattel made a distinction between citizens and subjects. Here, he is clearly talking about citizenship, which is what applies in the United States.
Wow. You sure know how to set your font big. But that doen’t make your point more accurate meaningful.
Is Marco Rubio a foreigner? A citizen of Cuba?
Oh, I know... you wonder what sort of person could be a foreigner born in the United States if being born in the United States makes you a natural-born citizen, don’t you? That would be one who was born in the United States of foreign parents who were not immigrants, but were under the law of the nation from which they came. Not illegal immigrants, but non-immigrants. For instance, John McCain is not a Panamanian.
Actually, we don’t really know that Obama has not “claimed” his Kenyan citizenship. He was in Kenya in time to preserve it, before losing it automatically. Second, Obama pushed for a new constitution in Kenya that allows for dual citizenship. We have no proof that he’s actually chosen to be a U.S. citizen until recent years.
The Court has a lot of leeway in how they choose to interpret the Constitution (including the 14th Amendment, newer than 225 years). But, given all that has happened in the 225 years, I don't see them going the Vattel route, even if it's technically correct (I don't think it is). At this point, any Supreme Court decision making Obama ineligible solely on the basis of con-law would be seen as contrived, as judicial fiat, judge-made law. It just wouldn't do, and the justices know it, so they won't do it.
<Groan...>
by dint of not only being a citizen, not only having been a citizen from birth, but by having both of his parents be citizens (i.e. of undivided loyalty) at the time that the future POTUS was born,
Help me out here, where exactly did you find those words...about the parents be citizens?
>> Vattel was referring to natural citizenship at birth. It stands to reason why this would be translated as natural-born citizens. <<
Except it wasn’t, historically. It was translated as “natives.” And the point is that Vattel was therefore NOT what the founders could have been referring to when they used the term, “natural-born citizens.”
In fact, Vattel was commenting on civil law in Romanist (that’s a system of law, nothing to do with Catholic) legal cultures which do NOT automatically grant citizenship based on land of birth, but based on father’s land of birth (which is why the entire Italian hockey team a few olympics ago was born in Brooklyn and similar places; U.S.-born children of parents from Roman-law countries are still citizens of those Roman-law countries.
This means that the founding fathers could NOT have been basing their concept of nationality on Vattel.
I should not have used “natural” in number 2, I should have used “citizen.” In number 3 I should have used “natural born citizen.”
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that: “No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, ...”
Article 1, Section 3 provides that: “No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, ...”
Article 2, Section 1 reads: “No person except a natural born citizen ..., shall be eligible to the office of the president ...”
That wording differentiates between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”
Nice try but no cigar.
IMO natural-born citizen is just an alternate way of saying native-born citizen or citizen at birth.
As the article points out nobody was much concerned about various previous presidential candidates, including Romney’s father, who did not meet the strict standards proposed by some birthers.
Fanatics wrote the Constitution. Idiots cr@p on it. Lawyers destroy it.
Precedent is what some Judge makes up in the hopes no higher court will overturn it so they can in effect legislate. Precedent is what funds a good deal of the law profession, that and bribes.
Since all us boobs here don't understand plain English perhaps you can clear up a vexing mystery for us, just what is the meaning of the word "is?"
Perhaps you should consult with Arlen Specter, he was very persuasive inserting totally irrelevant Scottish Law B$ into the impeachment trial of the language expert.
Zak was once a FReeper. He posted mindless pro-GOP propagandist pablum (I don’t mean Conservative, either) and when he’d be questioned on it, he’d refuse to answer. He got the ZOT.
But according to the criteria being presented today, just being born on American soil would make ANYBODY a NBC.
That would include blacks, slaves, chinese, everybody, therefore we would not need the 14th amendment and yet we have the 14th amendment!!!
The passing of the 14th amendment destroys their NBC arguement, but it also exposes the fact that the 14th means something else.
Go back to post #31 and watch the video...
No... He is a citizen by birth no different than any “anchor baby”, not a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Constitution and Common Law on whiuch the Constitution is based.
You can turn it and twist it anyway you want, but unless you propose ignoring the Constitution, it changes nothing.
I wish to hell all the race baiting open borders pimps would leave. No Brains would be a better screen name for you since obviously the one you have is a cover.
“Go back to post #31 and watch the video...”
Here I saved you the trouble of having to go back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
Sorry, but you're only looking at one word in the overall passage about "Citizens and Natives" as translated from the French words "Des citoyens et naturels" ... It is talking about citizens and natural citizenship at birth through their fathers.
Well then the precedent has been established, so all these stupid arguments are just not relevant anymore.
Long Live the King. And his lawyers.
Very good, but I would say that the three kinds of citizens are 1)naturalized, 2)Native born, 3)Natural born. Many confuse Native born with Natural born and there is a difference.
To that pojnt you are correct, which brings us further down the next road ofverifying whether Cuba was a US Protectorate at the time of the Senator’s birth as it relates to his father and possibly mother (not assuming she had previously been naturalized) or had the legal sovernty of Cuba changed prior to that date.
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.