Blog The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with "Natural Born"

[Silent Knight]

The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with the Natural Born Citizen Issue

The issue over the idea of natural born citizen is being touted quite a bit leading up to the GOP debate this week and in its wake, too many people are confused and have not looked at what the Constitution says, nor have they taken the time to go back and see how the founders understood the term. They regurgitate what conservative talking heads and such spew out about Supreme Court rulings and cite laws that do not deal with the term natural born citizen. However, the elephant in the room (or the Constitution) that is never addressed is the differences of how there are the apparent differences of citizens in the Constitution itself.

I have alluded to this previously when pointing out that the Constitution specifically addresses in the very qualifications that there are natural born citizens and citizens.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution reads:

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. (Emphasis mine)​

Now, there is no question that men like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal all meet the criteria of being at least 35 years old and have been residents in the States. There is also no question that these men are citizens. The question is, are they natural born citizens.

The other night in the debate, Ted Cruz mixed up natural born citizen and citizen just like he has in the past. However, he's not the only one that does that. There are lots of people who claim you are either a citizen or a naturalized citizen and there is nothing else that can be added to another kind of citizen, but that's not what the framers had in mind and it isn't even what the Constitution presents to us.

First, as has been very eloquently presented by Publius Huldah, the founders had at least three copies of Vattel's Law of Nations in their possession during the first Constitutional Convention and they made use of it. In that book, it is the first place that we read about a natural born citizen. Vattel writes concerning citizens and natives:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Emphasis mine)

Clearly, Vattel, in defining natural born citizen, would have deemed Obama, Cruz, Jindal and Rubio as those who are not natural born citizens. I really don't think there is any argument against Vattel on that. However, the question is, does the Constitution follow that thinking? Lo, and behold, it does.

As cited above, there is a clear distinction between a natural born citizen and the citizens in the grandfather clause. While many of those in America would be considered citizens at the time of the founding, they would never be natural born citizens and so this was the need for the grandfather clause.

But consider in addition to Article II, Section 1 that deals with the requirement to be a natural born citizen for the President, that there are other requirements for representatives and senators and notice the language:

Article I, Section 2 states:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."​

Article I, Section 3 states:

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."​

Do you notice something that is obviously missing from a requirement of these offices that is in the requirement for President? That's right, there is no requirement for representatives and senators to be natural born citizens. Rather, the framers simply used the term citizen, as they did in Article II, Section 1. We can also see that they emphasized a length of time one had to be a citizen to hold that office (7 years for a representative and 9 years for a senator).

So, what is the issue, you ask? Clearly, the framers saw, for lack of a better term, "different classes of citizens." This has nothing to do with diminishing the rights of any citizen, but distinguished who would have the privilege of serving in these offices and who could not.

The real difference here is this: natural born citizen is a fact and citizen is a legal status.

Get that?

And lest you think I'm straining at gnats here, understand that the "devil is always in the details," or in this case, the distinction of natural born citizen and citizen. The framers have even written in such a way to make that distinction. Every other place in the Constitution, only the term citizen is used and I believe it was a clear indication of protecting an office that only one man holds and they wanted to ensure that his loyalties were not divided with dual citizenship allegiances.

My contention in this matter is not about personalities. I have addressed the issue with Obama and now I'm addressing it with those who claim to be on my side. The issue is one of principle. To mix and match citizen with natural born citizen is to undermine the very wording of the Constitution and distinction of those terms for the purpose of holding office.

This article is far longer than I desired it to be already, but I hope that it sets a foundation of understanding that the Constitution presents the two citizens as distinct. I will continue my thoughts on this in a future installment. Stay tuned.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/t...tural-born-citizen-issue/#Ev2QKchE8iXhKjLR.99

 

[Be Well]

That's the truth that few want to look at. And because they refused with 0bunghole, now even "conservatives" can't vet Cruz. It's disgusting. I read months about this on Free Republic, they had a bunch of people including a lawyer or two, doing a lot of reading and posting about the NBC topic. I learned a lot, reading stuff way beyond my pay grade, but I tried my best to grok it, as it is such a vital topic. Anyone who reads contemporaneous documents gets it, that a NBC means "person born on US soil with two US citizen parents".

 

[FarmerJohn]

Entitled to citizenship at birth is one way that 'natural-born' is described; the opposite of naturalized citizens. A common interpretation of Vattel's phrase: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens," is that it is a list of qualifications, any one of which qualifies one as natural-born. The opinion of a vocal minority seems to hold to the opinion that Vattel's list is meant describe a state where all stipulations are to be met before one is considered natural-born.

It will be interesting to see what happens when or if a court is ever called upon to decide which interpretation is the correct.

 

[packyderms_wife]

That's the truth that few want to look at. And because they refused with 0bunghole, now even "conservatives" can't vet Cruz. It's disgusting. I read months about this on Free Republic, they had a bunch of people including a lawyer or two, doing a lot of reading and posting about the NBC topic. I learned a lot, reading stuff way beyond my pay grade, but I tried my best to grok it, as it is such a vital topic. Anyone who reads contemporaneous documents gets it, that a NBC means "person born on US soil with two US citizen parents".

And Cruz being a constitutional lawyer knows full well that he's not qualified, imagine the carnage he will leave behind if he's actually elected president!

 

[Be Well]

More evidence, copied from a freeper who has done his homework.

Trump is right to sue. Here's at least four reasons why Cruz is wrong...

1) The "natural born citizen" requirement originated in John Jay's July 25, 2787 letter to George Washington, the only historical document directly related to the natural born citizen requirement as used in the Constitution. It means "not a foreigner." Anyone born a foreign citizen/subject is ineligible, including born dual citizens (e.g., Cruz, Obama).

John Jay's letter
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/ldpd:68356

Text
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251 *

2) The US State Department warns very clearly what the problems of automatically acquired dual citizenship are: owing allegiance to more than one country, legal obligation to obey both countries' laws, either country's valid legal right to enforce their laws upon their own citizens/subjects (including mandatory military service).
US State Department on problems of dual citizens

http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...ip-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html **

3) The Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of those born dual citizens. Prime example: the impressment of US citizens into service in the British Royal Navy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

4) The 1790 law was repealed in 1795. In the new 1795 law, the "natural born" designation was eliminated (see Sec. 3). No law since then designates those born outside the US to US citizen parents to be natural born citizens. Congress had the chance to do so in 2004, but did not.

1790 and 1795 Laws
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

2004 Senate bill 2128
https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/2128/text

*To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether 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 army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay

**Dual Nationality

Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals. Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States. The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a national of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. national parents may be both a U.S. national and a national of the country of birth.

A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. nationality. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose nationality.

Information on losing foreign nationality can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. nationality in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.​

 

[Be Well]

And a bit more, also copied from Free Republic and one bit re-copying from TB2:


In the draft under consideration of the constitution Hamilton proposed the wording “citizen” but John Jay, to become the first Chief justice of the Supreme court wrote a letter to George Washington, Chairman of the Constitutional committee to suggest the wording “Natural born citizen” explaining that it would assure than any President of the united States AND Commander in chief of the Military MUST be the child of American Citizens (plural) which would INSURE that NO person with divided loyalties could ever be elected. Therefore the wording “Natural born citizen” was inserted and approved. The letter and the verification of it all is to be found in the National Archives as related by Vattel.


www.birtherreport.com/...request-for-senator-ted-cruzs.html

or you can google FOIA Requests for Cruz Birth Certificate

and then to the Birtherreport which will show you FOIAA requests have been denied. i find it interesting tha/t Cruz says he applied for Canadian citizenship when he worked in Canada in oil, etc.


Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section.

In the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was

"simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

 

[Be Well]

Bumping for very important information about the actual meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" as this issue is not over by any means.

 

[pinkelsteinsmom]

Clearly one must see the country has been overthrown and the Constitution is no longer in play.

 

[packyderms_wife]

Clearly one must see the country has been overthrown and the Constitution is no longer in play.

This^^^ The democrats ignored the constitution and now it would appear that the republicans are in fact no better. And if you want to get certifiably woo woo over this then Cruz/Rubio's presidential runs were in play 12 years ago. Gotta wonder what ties their Cuban American parents have to ole Fidel or even Lenin? Yeah I'm going there because no one else has the ****ing guts to do so!

 

[FarmerJohn]

Be Well, your link above http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

says in the first paragraph:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens

That "as" usage seems to be the same as "be."

That's why although born in Mexico, Mitt Romney's father was a viable candidate until he shot himself in the foot with his story about being brainwashed.

 

[pinkelsteinsmom]

Be Well, your link above http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

says in the first paragraph:



That "as" usage seems to be the same as "be."

That's why although born in Mexico, Mitt Romney's father was a viable candidate until he shot himself in the foot with his story about being brainwashed.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens

requires both mother and father as citizen. This has been proven by the congress getting involved to save McShame as a NBC.

 

[Be Well]

requires both mother and father as citizen. This has been proven by the congress getting involved to save McShame as a NBC.

Plus the 1790 act was replaced with the 1795 act which added born under US sovereignty, thus natural born citizens are citizens by right of jus sanguinis - right of blood, and jus soli - right of the soil.

 

[Be Well]

For anyone interested in reading about the original intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause requirement for Pres and VP.

 

[Be Well]

People who are even slightly concerned with presidential eligibility should read this and the "Oh Oh" thread.

 

[Be Well]

People need to read this.