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

To: frog in a pot
His father didn't give birth to him. His mother did and she was a natural born US citizen having been born in Delaware, which is one of the original 13 states in case you are unaware of.

Nowhere does it say in the constitution that someone has to be born in the United States to be considered a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. Also nowhere does it say in the constitution that both parents have to be citizen. What it says is a citizen, which can be either the father or the mother.

And as he never had to go through a naturalization progress proves that he is a natural born citizen. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a naturalized citizen who was not eligible for the presidency, even though there were freepers who wanted him to run for the office.

The original meaning of "natural born Citizen" also comports with what we know of the Framers' purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to "cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections." The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay's own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.

47 posted on 01/29/2016 9:06:14 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

Great, Cruz can argue that to a judge and get an affirmative ruling on his eligibility.


48 posted on 01/29/2016 9:09:10 AM PST by Trumpinator ("Are you Batman?" the boy asked. "I am Batman," Trump said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

51 posted on 01/29/2016 9:17:57 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin; Springfield Reformer; Perdogg
The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace.

That is at the center of the issue and was exactly their fear as it applied to the new Commander-in-Chief!

What language did the founders use to assure uncompromised loyalty of the nation's new commander-in-chief?

The perspective from Jay and Washington and the ENTIRE group of our founders - who, by the way had just fought an enormously bloody and costly revolution which was made even more difficult by "Americans" who were loyal to England - is apparent from both what is in the record and the fact the term NBC was included without debate:

The commander-in-chief's loyalty to the nation shall not be compromised by: a) birth outside of the U.S. in a nation that may later attempt to influence that loyalty, nor; b) birth to a non-citizen parent who may later be in a position to influence that loyalty.

The USSC has acknowledged that the highest form of NBC is two American parents and birth within the country. Any who argue the founders did not intend such qualifications with regard to the CIChave the burden of demonstrating the founders intended something else. There is no evidence the founders intended anything but NBC in its highest form.

Nor is this view of NBC anything new. For decades the U.S. educational system taught it was two parent citizens and birth in the U.S. The view no doubt originated with the writings of legal and legislative experts weel presented in the record.

59 posted on 01/29/2016 10:00:30 AM PST by frog in a pot (What if a previous liberal D says most of the things we are not hearing from the R candidates?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin; All

“..Nowhere does it say in the constitution that someone has to be born in the United States to be considered a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. Also nowhere does it say in the constitution that both parents have to be citizen. What it says is a citizen, which can be either the father or the mother.

And as he never had to go through a naturalization progress proves that he is a natural born citizen. ..”

EXACTLY!

Even Trump knows Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen, and SAID so before Cruz’s climbing in the polls made Trump nervous.


85 posted on 01/29/2016 9:19:13 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

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