Posted on 03/18/2023 10:56:28 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Mar. 18, 2023) — The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen”. However, the term is not defined in the Constitution. Neither has a law or court ruling been made more exactly delineating the constraints of the term. The purpose of this post is not to re-hash the arguments about what “natural born citizen” means, but to outline a process that generates a legal standard for how it is enforced. The States are key to this process.
This proposal is to have one or more states enforce via legislation the implementation of the requirement in their state, according to their understanding of the requirement. If a candidate or political party sues the state, the Supreme Court will review the law and decide whether the details of the law are constitutional, according to the original intent of the framers. By this means, we can produce a general standard for the requirement that all states could adopt. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/03/18/states-should-enforce-natural-born-citizen-requirement/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Amen!!!!
If the Natural Born Citizen requirement for President was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (keep foreign alleigances from taking over), and if the Framers grandfathered themselves as eligible, then it's reasonable to assume that their Posterity was the intended population to become President.
The Posterity of We the People are the citizen children (our Posterity) of citizen parents (We the People).
Therefore, a natural born citizen is a citizen child of citizen parents, as the intended reason stated in the Preamble.
-PJ
What? Then no tin horn judge could ‘rule’ “No standing”. These in the law business are not about to give up their power to buy and sell rulings. Christ gave US the state of the state of those who sit in the seat of Moses, the lawgiver….
Matthew 23
Right now some municipalities are granting illegal aliens the right to vote. So parts of this country are moving in the opposite direction.
Not sure about this.
It might be hard to prove your mother did not have a cesarean section
There is a problem here, if you use 1776’s population of the US (13 states)...it’s 2.5-million (more or less). No one can cite facts here, but one might assume that one out of every ten ‘citizens’ were really a first-generation American, and in some areas of the nation...it might have been one out of every four who were first-generation.
What is odd here, the natural born distinction applies only to the President/VP....not to House members, Senators, Judges or state Governors.
It would appear that the wording was created to prevent a case where some British (or French) figure arrives...gets popular regional support and ascends to the Presidency.
Anyone who was a "citizen" of the United States at the time of ratification (1789) was eligible to become President.
That would make children eligible, and immigrants since Independence who became citizens of a state would be grandfathered in, making their future children also eligible.
It would not include British soldiers who deserted, French or German (Hessian) soldiers who remained, etc.
-PJ
Where is Natural Born Citizen defined?
See the Supreme Court case ‘Minor vs Happersett’
Suppose a state passed a law that gave a definition of a natural born citizen (NBC) and started enforcing that law in federal elections held in their state. The Democrats would definitely sue and try to overturn the law in state court. If the state court declined to hear the case the Democrats would move up the chain. Eventually it might end up before the USSC. I think the gist of their suit would be that elections for federal offices must be uniform throughout the country or else you have a violation of the equal protection clause. Also, they would claim that the definition of NBC is not up to a state legislature to set. But resolving such a claim means that the state definition of NBC would have to be compared to a standard definition of NBC to test for constitutionality. If there is no standard definition, then you can’t claim the state definition is not constitutional. If there is one the USSC will have to lay out their definition in the opinion. And then you have a standard definition, which the Democrats don’t want at all.
See Wong Kim Ark. It was 23 years later than Happersett, and answered the question about children born here of alien parentage. Happersett did not answer that question.
I would be interested to know what you think about
an Article V Convention of States.
Read section 212 in this legal treatise: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
Also see various SCOTUS cases cited and explained at Article II Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Also this White Paper: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
The point of the article by Roger Ogden is that one or two state’s legislature should pass a law and have the governor sign it. Then it would likely get challenged and thus eventually the U.S. Supreme Court would have to stop ducking the issue and decide its definition. Justice Thomas says SCOTUS is avoiding the issue. So they will have to be forced to do its job. This would be one way to get them to do it.
Also swing on by and read the discussion between Roger Ogden and commenters ongoing at the author’s Patriot Fire site: https://patriot-fire.net/2023/03/06/solution-for-natural-born-citizen-requirement-for-president/
Clearly, someone sympathetic to Obama was worried enough to tamper with the SCOTUS research site. I wonder why?
-PJ
Agree
Yes we should also enforce immigration laws, but we don’t. Obama and Soros money makes sure we don’t.
In English Common Law in 1776, which passed to all 13 states at independence, the term Natural Born Subject (which became Natural Born Citizen at independence) had a very specific definition per Blackstone. Every lawyer in the newly independent states, including those at the Constitutional convention would have owned a copy of Blackstone’s Law Dictionary and knew what the phrase meant:
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
“ 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, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.”
Any person born within the boundaries of the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States, period. This is regardless of their parentage, as defined by both the Common Law and the Constitution. Any person born elsewhere in the world who has at least one US citizen parent is also a natural born citizen, because the laws of the United States state they have citizenship from birth.
The only Americans who are not natural born citizens are those who were naturalized after birth either by adults applying for citizenship, or minor foreign born children who became citizens when their parents were naturalized, or who were adopted by American parents.
Any other definition, such as the Swiss legal scholar Vattel is foreign to the Common Law and does not apply to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America.
I agree but the Constitution has been largely ignored since the year it was ratified.
Anytime the congress writes into law the phrase “The secretary shall have the power to write such regulations as necessary to carry out the duties enacted in this law.” The constitution is being ignored and subverted.
No where in the constitution is congress given the power to delagate their responsibility to write the laws of this nation to another branch of government.
If congress had to write the regulations and vote on them we would have a much smaller federal government.
Agreed. It’s just that simple.
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.