Skip to comments.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 ...
Because you didn’t ask me first!
This is how your ridiculous argument is defended.
By refusing to rely upon facts, and just manipulating the words of others, you refuse to allow your argument to stand under the scrutiny of logic and law.
“Did I say they couldn’t be citizens?”
What you said was that “You have to be an Alien first for anything therein [in the law, that is] to apply.” The part of the law the article paraphrased, and which you didn’t appear to argue was paraphrased incorrectly, clarified certain basic qualification for citizenship from birth. Obviously, if you qualify according to the conditions laid out you are a citizen. And if that part of the law, at least, applies to citizens then your assertion that “You have to be an Alien first for anything therein to apply” was false.
That’s all I was saying.
“That child is still a naturalized citizen and not a natural born citizen.
Are you too stupid to understand that?”
Maybe so, as I’ve tried real hard and still can’t understand how someone can be native born without being natural born. I’ve heard the phrase “naturalized from birth,” but that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Positive law doesn't make someone qualify for a natural law status.
Is someone going to explain the Minor decision and how 18 Supreme Court justices agreed on the definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
The wording is 5 years past the 14th birthday...
Stan Ann was 18 when Barry was born
therein lies that original problem youre trying to remember...
She had to be 19 to infer American citizenship on her baby...
Otherwise he takes his fathers nationality...
Which was British at the time of his birth....
Thank you; stating it in the negative (with slightly different emphasis) produces one of the clearest definitions of NBC that I have seen -- and it conveys the founders' reasoning for the NBC requirement.
No one who has one foreign citizen as a parent can meet the above criteria.
Here we go again.
There are only two factors that are considered in determining citizenship at birth.
1. On which country’s soil your born.
2. What was the citizenship of your parents.
If the citizenship of your parents is not the same as the country you were born in, you have a conflict.
You could be a dual citizen and some countries do not recognize dual citizenship.
But if your parents were citizens of the same country you were born in, there is no conflict.
You are naturally a citizen of just that one country.
Now, where do you people think ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ came from?
What could be more simple than this?
That’s it....Do you have the dirct quote. It should be sent to Bret B before he makes a complete fool of himself.
“My point, however, is that there is a persistent tendency to confuse “natural born” and ‘native born’. They are not the same.”
There is a persistent tendency among people who don’t like Obama and/or anchor babies to argue seperate status for native and natural borns, but I’ve never seen that to be the case under U.S. law. Perhaps that’s because SCOTUS by chance has never ruled on a case concerning presidential eligibility, or if they have specifically about the eligibility of native borns. If they had, birthers’d esteem it as highly as Wickard or Plessy, and we’d be back to where we started.
There are, so far as the vast majority of professional and lay legal choppers are concerned, two categories of citizenship: born and naturalized. This phantom third category of born but not eligible to be president citizens seems to have popped up out of nowhere, and has never been glimpsed by me in the wild, as it were.
Last night my wife wanted to watch O'Rielly and prefaced her tuning in with "Honey please don't get mad and start throwing things at the TV..."
Needless to say I am not watching much TV these days.
Maybe so, as Ive tried real hard and still cant understand how someone can be native born without being natural born.
I don't think you want to understand myself.
Ive heard the phrase naturalized from birth, but that doesnt make any sense to me.
Then grasp the concept of natural law versus positive law and you might.
Why can’t the Supreme Court issue a ruling on Natural Born citizenship?
If a person were to sue their State to keep Obummer off the ballot due to his ineligibility, wouldn’t that provide “standing” to appear before the Supremes, since the State is named as a party? Amendment XI doesn’t seem to prohibit such a suit, does it?
We really need a firm ruling on this Natural Born Citizen issue ... pronto!
“how 18 Supreme Court justices agreed on the definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”
When were there ever 18 justices? Or are you conflating two different decisions? Then why only name Minor?
Byu the way, they didn’t exhaustively define natural born citizenship. They may have said children born to two citizen parents are natural born citizens, but I’m sure they didn’t say native borns aren’t.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Natural born citizen Constitutional Law A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a “natural born Citizen
Natural born citizen example Bob’s parents are British citizens. Bob is born in Hawaii and is subject to the jurisdiction of that state. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008) , Bob acquires U.S. citizenship at birth. Therefore, Bob is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
“Otherwise he takes his fathers nationality...
Which was British at the time of his birth”
He also takes U.S. citizenship, as he was born in the U.S. and his parents were here legally (or even if they hadn’t been, if they were subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law). Which means he’s a citizen from birth, i.e. a natural born citizen.
The two sections are these...
@8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth and
@8 USC § 1408 - Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
Too late. He's already made a complete fool of himself.
They already have in Minor. The court has a tendency not to hear cases they have ruled on before.
“For the children of aliens!”
“They’re naturalized via positive law which Congress was empowered to create under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4...’establish a uniform rule of naturalization’.”
This is a seperate argument, and I’d like again to stress that the point I was making is that you said one has to be an alien for the law to apply to you, and obviously that is untrue.
Pretty good explaination.
8 U.S. Code, Section 1401 does not address “Natural Born Citizen” and it does not seem to be clearly defined anywhere else with legal standing.
The defined meaning is akin to interpitation of the Bible, most everyone has their set of ideas. Until NBC comes before the SCOTUS, it will likely remain clouded. Additionally, because there is not solidly set of rules who may object prior to the Electorial College, the Court remains moot and powerless to say doodley until someone “with standing” brings it to the SCOTUS.
Sure looks like a puzzle the Founding Fathers gave to a future generation to resolve as part of the necessary struggle to maintain our liberty.
It still falls under USC : Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Funny you should say that. I only saw that particular piece and it was the first time I have taken the time to watch the news in many weeks. I haven't been missing the lies at all.
Since USC 8 pertains to ALIENS AND NATIONALITY how can "Bob" be a natural born citizen when positive law, not natural law, made him a citizen?
I agree. I think that was the sole purpose of this nonsense. Cover for Rubio.
“I don’t think you want to understand myself.”
No, you are.
“Then grasp the concept of natural law versus positive law and you might.”
Oh, okay, how about the fact that there can’t be any such thing as a U.S. citizen, natural born or naturalized, without the positive law that is the U.S. Constitution? You can have the natural right to bear arms without the Constitution, but not the right to be the citizen of the U.S. For no such thing as the U.S. exists in nature: it is the creation of positive law.
Moreover, one cannot be both native born and naturalized. To be naturalized you must be converted into a citizen after birth via positive law. That does not apply to people made citizens by virtue of the manner in which they were born. Not even if what controlled their birth status was the 14th amendment, which is positive law, yes, but no moreso than the Constitution as a whole.
Explain to me how soil babies becoming citizens through the natural process of birth are somehow made citizens in the same manner as the naturalized. The best you can probably do is to quibble about how no one ever needed to tell us that the children of two citizen parents are citizens, but we needed the 14th amendment to tell us about soil babies. Well, jus solis was no secret to Vattel, at least, who recognized its control in of all places England. Which, you might recall, is the mother country.
So you’re saying that Cornell University (hot bed of marxist socialism) Law School says that a person is a natural born citizen because of a statute - 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008)?
Forget blood and lineage, forget location, natural born to you means by statute.
No its cover for Willard Mitt Romney
His father George was born in Mexico...
Natural law existed prior to the establishment of the Constitution.
Or are you going to argue that natural law didn't exist under the Articles of Confederation which was prior to the Constitution?
The rest of your post is even worthy of response.
This is my take on Bret's CRAP:
He's simply saying: to all conservatives out there, right of center media aren't cowards and we don't want to be FORCED by our bosses, the WH, the 50% thuggish population, etc. to call you kooks...it's an election year and this should put to bed, either you like it or not!
BTW, we don't want to discuss it either, so save US the trouble!
Signed, Bret Bayer, FNC...representing the right of center talking heads and, wink wink, the RNC!
“They already have in Minor.”
I just cut and pasted what I found, but did you notice the date?
“8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008)”
put to bed -———> put it to bed................
Signed, Bret Baier, ...........
“How is it untrue? Does the law apply to the children of aliens or doesn’t it?”
Yes. Since the children of aliens can be citizens, and the particular section of the law cited talks about how, obviously it applies to citizens as well as aliens. Therefore, your contention that it applies only to aliens is false.
I don’t know why we’re still talking about this.
Sorry Bret but to quote Professor Akhil Reed Amar, “each word of the Constitution is to be given meaning; no words are to be ignored as mere surplusage.” Therefore it is insufficient to equate “natural born citizen” with “citizen” lest you consider “natural born” to be surplus. Note well that the founders made such a distinction in Article I versus Article II, adding the words “natural born” in Article II, Section 1 listing the qualifications for the Office of President.
I sure did. (2008)
Wrong. Rubio was born a citizen; therefore, he's natural born. That's the common understanding of the term, and that's all Bret is asserting.
There are only two types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. Natural born are those who are citizens because of the circumstances of their birth. Naturalized are all the rest, such as Kissinger, Schwarzenegger, Granholm, et al. They were born something else (German, Austrian, Canadian) and became citizens later.
At this point, there is no way the Court is going to contrive a new definition of Natural Born in order to keep Obama off the ballot. Obama is going to have to be defeated in the election. Period.
BTW, Bret did make one little mistake: He failed to note that the age requirement of Section 1401 only applied to married women. That would exclude Stanley Ann, since her 'marriage' was bigamous and thus invalid. Therefore, little Barry bastard would be eligible even if born in Mombasa, as long as Stanley Ann was his mother.
I’d like to pose a couple of questions.
We should all be able to agree that someone born of two citizen parents in the United States is a natural born Citizen of the US.
Do we agree on this?
Since there are questions about anyone else (otherwise there wouldn’t be these long discussion threads) if a candidate did not meet this criteria, should it not be the candidate’s responsibility to prove conclusively that he/she is a natural born citizen also, as opposed to us having to prove they’re not?
We know what a natural born Citizen is. We just don’t seem to know what it’s not (at least some folks).
And 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?
If there’s a “misunderstanding” of a definition, it’s our misunderstanding, not the Founders’ failure to “define” a term in the Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what they were writing. But, they were counting on an educated populace to enforce the Constitution. They didn’t realize how much we could be dumbed down.
I dont know why were still talking about this.
I'm still talking about it because you're still getting it wrong!
This phantom third category of born but not eligible to be president citizens seems to have popped up out of nowhere, and has never been glimpsed by me in the wild, as it were.
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".
I agree with that as represented.
Since there are questions about anyone else (otherwise there wouldnt be these long discussion threads) if a candidate did not meet this criteria, should it not be the candidates responsibility to prove conclusively that he/she is a natural born citizen also, as opposed to us having to prove theyre not?
I would say it is definitely the candidate's responsibility and it shouldn't be left up to a political party to do so. If the political party does so when it's false then they're guilty of fraud IMO.
...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?
Well in some cases yes. If they served on the British side...no. If they served on the American side...then yes.
That's why the clause was written the way it was. Loyalty was considered and easily proven.
“Natural law existed prior to the establishment of the Constitution.”
Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms. What didn’t exist prior to the establishment of the Constitution was the U.S. You cannot be a citizen of the U.S. by nature in the same way that you have a right to bear arms by nature. You need positive law, namely the U.S. Constitution.
“Or are you going to argue that natural law didn’t exist under the Articles of Confederation which was prior to the Constitution?”
That’s neither here nor there. The U.S. and the nation that existed under the Articles of the Confederation—which was called what, the American Confederacy?—are not one. Before the Constitution you were a citizen of the Confederacy or the state in which you lived. Before the Articles of Confederation, you were a citizen of your state and informally I guess of the quasi-nation under the Continental Congress. Before the Continental Congress, you were a British subject. Before the Brish came over, I don’t know, you were a Red Indian.
None of this is by nature, but rather by law and custom.
“The rest of your post is even worthy of response”
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.
Via a brief Constitutional Convention Reenactment. Here's how it went.
Cautious Framer: ‘What exactly do we mean by, ‘natural born citizen’?
Progressive Framer: ‘Why, any baby born on US soil, obviously.’
C Framer: ‘Uh...is that *really* what we mean? Because if it is, King George or any other enemy of the Republic could take advantage of it to undermine the Republic.’
Prog Framer: ‘How so?’
C Framer. ‘Easy. He could arrange to have a child born here, bring it back to England, indoctrinate it against the Republic, and then send it back to run for office. Under the right circumstances, the Enemy of the Republic could win, and destroy everything we're about to give our blood and treasure to create.’
Prog Framer: ‘Granted. But in the first case, that's a worst case scenario and might never happen. In the second, if we're more restrictive, history will say we discriminated against innocent babies. I can't speak for you, but that's now how *I* want to be remembered.’
C Framer: ‘Isn't it better to be a little restrictive than to risk the entire Republic? If, for instance, we limited the highest office of the land to the offspring of US citizens, it would vastly decrease the opportunity for foreign enemies to destroy the US from within.’
Prog Framer: ‘No way. Under that scenario, the children of foreign enemies of the Republic could be born on US soil but still be Second Class Citizens. Just because they have divided loyalties and may seek to ‘fundamentally change’ and/or destroy the Republic is no reason to discriminate against them. Better to lose the entire Republic than hurt the feelings of an innocent baby. Besides, diversity is our strength—and included in diversity are those who hate the Republic. The only thing that matters, and that will ever matter, is what little patch of terra firma the baby happens to be born on. So what if they're loyal to a foreign country--even one that hates the Republic and seeks to destroy it? Non-discrimination trumps every other consideration, case closed.’
What does that have to do with anything? It's simple. You said anyone covered under 8 USC § 1401 had to be an alien first, because the larger 8 USC was titled "Aliens and Nationality."
But 8 USC § 1401 begins, "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
When is someone who's a "citizen of the United States at birth" ever an alien? In the womb?
Natural born citizen is being compared to the only OTHER type of citizenship recognized by the US Constitution going forward - naturalized citizens.
Citizens means all types of citizens. There has been, in the history of this Republic - only three types. Those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (most were natural born subjects of England) and they are all dead at this point. The other two types are “naturalized” and “natural born”.
One is either a citizen at birth with natural allegiance - or one is naturalized via a legal process.
This view of the law doesn't render any verbiage of the Constitution superfluous.
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.