Posted on 08/12/2020 8:35:00 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Yeah, there’s a meme suggesting that if something happened to Joe, Kamala would be ineligible and hello President Pelosi..
The following is from The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law (neither did Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists that coined "wall of separation between church and state"), it is a window into contemporary understanding of "natural born citizen." It was written by a man widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person..
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection with the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Now compare Paine's understanding of a "full natural" citizen with the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble says that he Constitution was "ordained and established... to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity."
"Ourselves" means "We the People," the citizens of the United States who established the Constitution and delegated our powers to the states and the federal government.
"Our Posterity" means the children born to We the People, the citizen descendants of citizen parents.
Resident aliens are not "We the People," as they are not citizens and cannot vote for representation in the House of Representatives. Since resident aliens are expected to be here for a long time, it is reasonable to assume that they will have children. Their children may be born here, but they are not citizens descended via parentage, as their parents are still citizens of their home countries. Therefore, children of resident aliens are not the "Posterity" of "We the People."
If resident aliens choose to become citizens (become "We the People"), then their subsequent children will be the posterity of We the People, and will also be citizen descendants of citizen parents.
This is what Paine was speaking of when he wrote of "foreigners" and "half a foreigner." Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
This is why I also have postulated that "natural born citizen" wasn't meant to describe a kind of citizenship (Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to define the rules of Naturalization), it was included as another qualification to be President.
Article II says that one has to be at least 35 years old and resided in the country for 10 years, too, to be President, but we don't say that "citizen over 35" is a class of citizenship just because it's in the same clause describing the President.
So how did "natural born" become a class of citizenship instead of just another narrowing requirement in Article II to be President? What's wrong with removing the phrase and claiming that to be President, one has to be descended from citizen parents, be over 35, and resided in the country for 10 years, without the "natural born" phrase being automatically assumed to mean class of citizenship? The intent of the clause remains unchanged. Note that the simpler term "citizen" is what is used as a qualification for Congress, but with lower age requirements. Why separate "natural born citizen" and ordinary "citizen" if both were to mean the same thing? Why hold the President to a higher standard than Congress if the words were synonymous?
I say that the reason "natural born" was placed into the Constitution in that specific location in Article II is that it was a "term of art," and everyone had a common understanding that it was meant as a qualification to be met in order to become President, along with age and residency. It is what separates the Executive from the Legislative. It is what gives power to the Preamble "to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity" by ensuring that the highest office in the land was held by citizen children of citizen parents.
Thomas Paine knew this when he wrote that chapter on Constitutions in 1791.
-PJ
“She’s a system under the 14th.”
I suppose you meant citizen under the 14th. The 14th says nothing about qualifications for being president, and does not contradict the necessity for being natural born — born of citizen parents. That has been the understanding of the American nation for hundreds of years, and now, all of a sudden, it has become uncool and can’t be figured out.
You're claiming the US doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest and charge an illegal alien if they commit a crime.
You're clearly wrong.
Trump was a citizen when they were born and under the jurisdiction of the US. They are eligible.
"Imagine that: a vice president or president of the United States with concurrent citizenship with another foreign government — a person with clearly divided loyalties and an ability and opportunity to participate in governmental proceedings of another country, travel on another country's passport, and legally take up residence in that country."
This dual citizenship argument has always been one of the stupidest.
Other countries determine their citizenship rules, not us.
Tomorrow, North Korea could declare Mike Pence a citizen. Does that mean he's now a threat?
Ivana Trump was not a U.S. citizen when Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump were born. Melania was not a U.S. citizen when Barron was born. Many here would argue this makes Tiffany Trump (daughter of Marla Maples) the only child of the president who is a natural born citizen.
I do not hold this view (and I doubt the president does either).
NO!, NO!, and NO!
Here we go again. MISINFORMATION!
If the 14th amendment is used in ANY way to interpret the “natural born citizen” constitutional eligibility issue, STOP READING!
The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with it!
When anyone talks about “Dual” citizenship, STOP READING!
It is NOT the issue!
Born ON U.S. SOIL, to TWO U.S. citizen parentS.
Simple, THAT’S IT!
Not born abroad in a U.S. embassy. Not born on a ship, airplane, or U.S. base abroad.
MAYBE not even Alaska (statehood 1959), Hawaii, (statehood 1959). Maybe not U.S. possessions and/or territories as they have varying laws on citizenship. (just being born in a U.S. possession or territory doesn’t automatically make you a U.S. “citizen” (let alone a natural born citizen)
“Dual Citizenship” (in and of itself) DOESN’T MATTER!
Usually (maybe always) so called “Dual Citizenship” is granted to a U.S. citizen by a FOREIGN country because of the heritage of the parents. Usually until the age of maturity.
Does the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA allow foreign countries to affect the citizenship of American citizens?
OF COURSE NOT! Foreign countries can grant anyone they want citizenship to their counties. We can’t stop that or do we (U.S. government) care.
Dual citizenship is a red herring! It doesn’t matter!
What MATTERS is the likely underlying issue of the parents citizenship.
Ted Cruz wasn’t ineligible because he had Canadian AND U.S. citizenship (Dual citizenship). It was because HE WAS BORN IN CANADA! (to a father who was NOT a U.S. citizen and a mother whose U.S. citizenship is in question).
Ted Cruz fails on BOTH counts jus soli AND jus sanguinis
He’s a Cubanadian.
John McCain wasn’t a natural born citizen, PERIOD!
HE WASN’T BORN ON U.S. SOIL! (like Ted Cruz) It doesn’t matter that he was born in the “Panama Canal Zone” (actually he WASN’T. He was born in Colon Panama NOT part of the Panama Canal Zone treaty) In ANY case, the Panama Canal Zone was NEVER a U.S. territory.
The fact that his parents were U.S. citizens and a law that was passed only applied to whether those children would be “native” born citizens or “naturalized” citizens. A distinction without much difference. NOT “natural born” status. Also being in the military makes ZERO difference in this matter.
The Obama presidency and the ignorance of the American people, has DESTROYED Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution.
So Cameltoe Harris (Legs up, SHOOT) will be deemed “eligible” to the office of vice president and president.
The silver lining here is that this will confirm that Donald Jr., Eric, Ivanka, and Barron Trump, even though they are NOT “natural born citizens”, will then be able to run for president and/or vice president.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
The number of courts that have removed a US-born person from a presidential ballot for “NBC” reasons is zero. It will always be zero.
NBC is a waste of time and energy. Fun on internet chat circles but a non-factor in the real world.
Didn’t need to be. Donald was and was under the jurisdiction of the US. Obama wasn’t because his mother was 17.
Other countries determine their citizenship rules, not us.
Tomorrow, North Korea could declare Mike Pence a citizen. Does that mean he's now a threat?
And let's not forget Donald Trump Jr.'s "clearly divided loyalties" between the United States and... Czechoslovakia. A country that doesn't even exist anymore.
No, and a lawsuit should be immediately filed.
Let the Supreme Court I guess declare once and for all what a natural born citizen means. To the letter.
I may or may not like their decision but then at least we have a specific definition and all parties can run with it.
No.
Slow Joe and the Hoe. Slave owners. No citizen parents fo the ho.
5.56mm
NO Let's forget this issue. If it is brought up that is all the MSM will be talking about
Rather, let's focus on what she believes in, her policy positions.
I know citizenship is an important issue but to win this election (those in the middle) ISSUES are what COUNT
Yes, this stupid birther crapb is the last thing anyone wants to hear right now
Nobody cares! ignorant hick birther conspiracy loons are not on our side!
I said something less than complimentary about Cruz’s ineligibility a while back, and was promptly attacked and bullied by the #neverTrumpers here.
You only get to your conclusion if you ignore most of that paragraph and don’t know what dicta is.
___
Thank you for printing the decisive paragraph of Minor v. Happersett. On the question of ‘natural born citizen’ it defines two groups; of of citizen parents giving birth to ‘native born’ or ‘natural born’ citizens, OF WHICH THERE IS NO DOUBT of allegiance. The other consideration being persons born here of parents from other jurisdictions giving birth to ‘citizens’, to which doubts of their U.S. allegiance are ascribed. So ‘anchor babies’ like Harris have always been of questionable allegiance, but not enough to prevent them from becoming legislators. But it disqualifies them from becoming POTUS.
I guess that’s one way of reading it. The wrong way, but one way.
The number of anti-Constitutionalists here still amazes me.
Born ON U.S. SOIL, to TWO U.S. citizen parentS.
That’s IT. It’s all you need to know about what a “natural born citizen” means.
Does that statement say “ONE” citizen parent? No, it does NOT!
Does it say born in a “foreign” country? No, it does NOT!
Does it say born in a foreign embassy? No, it does NOT!
(foreign embassies are NOT U.S. soil)
Does it say anything about parents being in the military or in service to their country? No, it does NOT!
Does it say anything about dual citizenship? No, it does NOT!
Does it mention the 14 amendment? No, it does NOT!
So, don’t bother yourself with all these extraneous distractions. They DON’T MATTER!
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States says:
“Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The last sentence of Article XII.
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The term “natural born citizen was well known to the founders. They were aware of and believed in the definition in the book:
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
EMMERICH DE VATTEL
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Page 212, (in part)
“...natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens....”
IN the country, parent”S” (plural), who ARE citizen”S” (plural).
“...it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.”
“The majority of this essay will be devoted to reviewing the contents of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, and its documented impact on America’s founding fathers.”
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html
For some “light” reading. /s
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.