Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” [3/11/15]
The Harvard Law Review ^ | March 11, 2015 | Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

Posted on 12/12/2015 3:56:13 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last
To: 2ndDivisionVet
In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

81 posted on 12/13/2015 7:40:11 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

82 posted on 12/13/2015 7:41:31 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiltie65

I’ve never seen this rumor, but it has the odor of Cruz opponents trying to stir up doubts, sans any pesky “evidence”. US laws specify that to lose US citizenship, you must make a clear declaration of intent to renounce it before a consular officer, after the age of majority. Applying for, or even accepting, Canadian citizenship would not end American citizenship by itself. The burden of proof should be on those who allege she renounced.


83 posted on 12/13/2015 8:28:54 AM PST by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Chewbarkah

Very real possibility. I think I read about several thousand or more people are giving up their U.S. citizenship yearly nowadays, and to do so presently costs several thousand dollars. A lot of U.S. citizens working in Europe get annoyed about having to pay taxes in the country they are working in, PLUS then have to pay taxes to the U.S., so they are giving up their U.S. citizenship. Scary thing to do with the world the way it is...I would think they would prefer to retain their U.S. citizenship to have a bolt hole they can return to when things get dicey.


84 posted on 12/13/2015 8:50:04 AM PST by kiltie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Despot of the Delta
For what it's worth? The Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced in 1795, correcting the definition you've highlighted. From this link:
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
As Wicki reports: "The Act of 1795 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which itself was repealed in 1802."

Etc., etc....

85 posted on 12/13/2015 9:34:02 AM PST by GBA (Just a hick in paradise and There Are FOUR Lights!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

On a personal note, my nephew was just born in Toronto to a Canadian mother and US father. I assume my nephew will need to renounce his Canadian citizenship before he announces his run for POTUS. /s


86 posted on 12/13/2015 3:58:54 PM PST by TauntedTiger (Born free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBA
Just want to compliment you on post #51. Well stated and strictly constructionist.

Double mega-dittos for not one, but two excellent references that may have went over some heads - (1) boolean kudos from a fellow computer scientist, and (2) a very apropos ST:TNG metaphor for modern Constitutional deconstructionism.

I guess all we can do is ~sigh~. 330 million people in the United States of America with probably close to 300 million Natural Born Citizens and somehow we are saddled with multiple edge cases in the last couple of elections. Dumbo, McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Romney, etc. And sure enough, the very first one that made it past the electorate ( we'll leave Chester A. Arthur out for now ) has been the worst possible disaster imaginable and proven the Founders wildly correct.

87 posted on 12/18/2015 6:04:32 AM PST by Democratic-Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Democratic-Republican
Thanks for your post and thoughts!

Since obama, the NBC issue went from being something I assumed was universal common knowledge to becoming a sort of personal litmus test/integrity box one checks for the same reasons you don't break the oath you swore to the scientific method.

I don't believe in coincidences like I once did and have been trying to see how many outside of the box explanations fit our situation and how we got here.

I see US as a battlefield in a different sort of war, fought in the personal realms above and below the "see" level, that is also manifesting itself in our physical world.

We, man, woman, child and nation, are under siege and constant assault. It's been this way for decades now and a few generations of US have been born and raised knowing nothing else. This is their normal and a mile marker for Reagan's one generation away warning.

As we became worn down and diluted and then a sense of desperation set in, the shots fired at the Constitution found Natural Born Citizenship to be a vulnerable target, thus the recently concentrated assault with a variety of weapons.

Your standard issue human, you, me and the rest of the planet, has a unique talent and can rationalize anything, any want or desire, any monstrosity or atrocity, you name it, even or especially something he or she said they'd NEVER do, say, etc. (What's that old saying? "Never say "never""?)

All it takes is the the proper setting and opportunity, the right/wrong heat of the moment, and it's done. After all, everybody knows that there's always an exception to the rule and some rules are made to be broken, right? Easily justifiable. Seemed like a good idea at the time. What else could we do?

Nothing new here and the FFs did their best to balance forces such to keep the beast in check, but "rules are made to be broken" doncha know...

And so goes the war. It's been a dazzling display of weaponry, targeting finesse and firepower by an enemy who knows US and our psychology better than we do.

Impressive. Sun Tzu would be taking notes and nodding approvingly right about now.

88 posted on 12/18/2015 8:04:27 AM PST by GBA (Here in the matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Change of wording in Naturalization Act of 1795 indicates that legislators at that time made distinction between phrases “natural born citizen” and “citizen” (at birth).

Otherwise why make the change?

2. Unfortunately for Sen. Cruz, in both cases law explicitly mentioned that children born to foreign citizen fathers are not US citizens at birth.


89 posted on 12/20/2015 4:06:33 AM PST by nosf40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
So realistically, who is going to challenge Ted Cruz, who is going to stop him from being the Republican nominee if he is the nominee, and stop him from running for President?

The only one with standing would be one of the other Republican candidates. If Cruz starts looking like he might take the lead from Trump I can see Trump filing suit. He's already questioned it in the past.

90 posted on 12/20/2015 4:53:42 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: exit82
But if Rubio becomes the nominee, you bet the Dems will raise the issue.

They won't need to. There will be enough Republicans to do that for them.

91 posted on 12/20/2015 4:57:04 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
There was one federal case in which standing was conceded but the judge, a long-time liberal out of the Movement and the LCCRUL, gave the Great Pretender a pass.

Which case was that?

92 posted on 12/20/2015 4:57:49 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Duchess47
A baby is subject to his parents and they are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever their citizenship is.

So does that mean if someone born in France sticks up a liquor store then they can't be arrested, tried, and jailed?

93 posted on 12/20/2015 5:00:02 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nosf40
Two obvious questions that are ignored for not so obvious reasons.

From a Battleground US point of view, the obama weapon was a perfectly calibrated version of several models fired, it designed specifically targeting the weakest of our Constitution's defenders.

Not unexpectedly, the obama weapon was a perfect hit, causing immense structural damage followed by a chain of secondary explosions that took out most threat detection and offensive capabilities, along with internal damage control.

Now seriously damaged, dead in the water and listing badly to port, the Constitution and nation have never been more vulnerable.

The obama weapon has been re-calibrated into several different versions and all were fired in saturation at the now even more vulnerable defenders of that same vulnerable spot the obama weapon had hit.

Two of those weapons are still tracking and riding the rail to target.

And though one is starting to paint on various early warning sensors and is showing signs of faltering, the other is performing perfectly, even better than the obama version.

94 posted on 12/20/2015 6:18:45 AM PST by GBA (Here in the matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Of course they can. They can’t however serve on a jury, or vote here. They can only do that in their own country.


95 posted on 12/20/2015 6:25:03 AM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Hollister v. Soetoro


96 posted on 12/20/2015 7:28:57 AM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Duchess47
Of course they can.

Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws.

They can't however serve on a jury, or vote here.

Neither can minors or convicted felons in many states. But they can still be natural-born citizens.

97 posted on 12/20/2015 9:48:27 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Or get a driver’s license or a job (legally) or legally get a social security number, etc. etc.


98 posted on 12/20/2015 9:53:59 AM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Hollister v. Soetoro

You're kidding, right? The judge in the Hollister case never said that he had standing. In fact he threw the case out three times, original ruling and two appeals, and said that the plaintiff failed to state a claim each time.

99 posted on 12/20/2015 9:54:32 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Duchess47
Or get a driver’s license or a job (legally) or legally get a social security number, etc. etc.

But they are still subject to our jurisdiction because they are subject to punishment if they violate our laws.

100 posted on 12/20/2015 10:50:06 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson