Natural Born Citizen Defined

[PAF]

A "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused). This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for presidency - and only for presidency, being clearly distinguished from ordinary citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in any later statutes, because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source "Law of Nations" is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular - against piracies and felonies on high seas).

According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that:

Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country. Vattel's own note on the margin of his book refers to the Roman law: NEMO PLUS JURIS TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning "No one can give more rights than he himself has" (by Dr. A. Altec).

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).

Often "Natural born citizenship" is confused with §1401 of the US Code "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth". Although the words sound similar, §1401 defines only ordinary citizenship including such shallow one as that of anchor babies (i.e. born to legal guests of the country, §1401(a), never mind illegal residents).

The Constitution clearly and explicitly excludes ordinary citizenship for presidency: ordinary citizenship was reserved only for the presidential candidates - contemporaries of the Framers (referred as the grandfather clause). Definitely the "Natural born citizenship" is not the same as ordinary citizenship, but something stronger. By not explicitly quoting Vattel's definition, the Constitution therefore leaves some room for confusion. (Many such confusions resulted of deliberate efforts of "progressives" to erode the basic constitutional concepts inconvenient for them).

Fortunately there exists (at least) one original US document directly defining the "Natural born citizenship" according to Emerich de Vattel. This document (which does have legal binding) is the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790.

Other arguments in favor of the definition of Vattel are the following. The Framers (in their correspondence) explicitly wished to exclude dual loyalty, and explicitly required that the US citizenship of the president be deeper than ordinary citizenship (such as that of their contemporaries). After all, any one can acquire an ordinary US citizenship in some point of one's life, so the Framers clearly excluded this kind of citizenship. On the contrary, the Natural Born Citizenship cannot be acquired: it may be only inherited.

After the Framers, all the presidential contenders (up to Sen. McCain in 2008 but not Obama) did officially satisfy this definition, demonstrating continuity of the meaning "Natural born citizenship" consistent with that of Vattel . (In the past only one President Chester Arthur 1881-1885 violated it, hiding and destroying the traces of the British citizenship of his father, discovered only after his death. The carefully hidden violation of Chester Arthur in fact is an additional argument that the Vattel's definition was valid and he was aware of it).

Consult the same source that the founders consulted to understand their intent:

The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns - Emer De Vattel

Chapter 19, Section 212 - Citizens and Natives (p.101)

"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 to 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 father is therefore that of the children."

Justice Marshall's opinion reiterates this definition. Only an amendment would alter this, which has been repeatedly attempted but so far has failed.

Fact: The US Constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

Fact: John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington suggesting the requirement be made.

Fact: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212

Fact: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying, (#123) 'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, '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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'

http://openjurist.org/12/us/253/the-venus-rae-master

Fact: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr. Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and none disputed his definition:

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in the Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of the laws and a compliance with the provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lw....html#anchor37


It is clear - a natural born citizen is a child born of TWO parents of the same citizenship. This is 'jus sanguinis' not 'jus soli'.

It is our duty to know our laws so that nobody perverts them, and to defend and protect against those who wish to see the Constitution dead.

____

H. J. RES. 67 –John Conyers [D-MI] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Sept. 3, 2003)

H. J. RES. 2 –John Conyers [D-MI] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Jan. 4, 2005)

H. J. RES. 42 –Vic Snyder [D-AR] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President. (April 14, 2005)

S. 2678 -Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO], tried to attach to SB 2678 an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors. (Feb. 28, 2008)

H. J. Res. 15 Rep. José Serrano [D-NY] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. (January 04, 2013)


____

Taken from various sources.
____

Added October 21, 2016




Publius Huldah - Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...zen-explained/

[Ronin Truth]

I don't seem to recall that Obama's father was a U.S. citizen.

[Peace&Freedom]

I don't seem to recall that Obama's father was a U.S. citizen.

Exactly. But as we have found in discussions over Obarry's qualifications, those pooh-poohing the subject rely on the statutory definition of citizenship and say that's sufficient to qualify him, or else feign they are unclear of the Constitutional/original intent meaning of "natural born." When that meaning is clarified for them, they then say the Constitutional standard doesn't matter. Either way, they deny its relevancy or clarity, or else say it is subordinate to subsequent statutes or case law precedent.

Since this is the same approach to Constitutional issues that non-liberty people take when it comes to every other topic, it means we lose the Constitutional high ground when we also become selective about which of its provisions we will defend. Undeclared wars? That's okay, because the War Powers Act gives the Executive sufficient authority. Federal Reserve? That's okay too, as Congress passed a statute a century ago to let the banks issue fiat currency, regardless of the Constitution's demand that only the Treasury may do so, and that it be based on gold and silver. Patriot Act et al? Well, the courts have basically upheld it...

Our consistent benchmark is either the original intent of the Constitution, or nothing, otherwise we are in no better position to complain about politicians fudging their adherence to it at will.

[PAF]

Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, etc. It will be “republican” politicians and voters who will seal-the-deal and establish precedence.

[The Free Hornet]

FACT: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr. Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and NONE disputed his definition. NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since, so the definition of 'natural-born citizens' remains as such (as per last sentence of this paragraph):

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have squat.

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since", but I'm 99% certain (not 100%), that your argument is full of holes:

Congress Tried to Change Natural Born Citizen Clause Over and Over

He outlines the specifics:

June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.”

• Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
• Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
• Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, “to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”
• Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.
• Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
• April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
• Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/

Your strange fidelity to positive law is cute, like puppy love, I guess. That said, you need to at least ground your arguments in reality and not make claims that would require 151 years of continuous and complete congressional monitoring.

More so, if it mattered all that much, you haven't explained how a constitution from 1787 could survive to 1862 without the benefit of Bingham's words.

More so, you haven't explained the clear meaning of "NO ONE has ever disputed this definition". If I define you as a dip$#@! on the floor of Congress, and "NO ONE" [!] disputes it, are you then a dip$#@!? Do I get a cookie?

Where in the Constitution does it exalt a Congressman's words so $#@!ing highly? I think it intended to give people more power and the government less. This includes the power to elect African-Amerians with whom you may or may not have some disagreements.

We didn't have an NBC until 8th President per Wiki:

The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.[30] The first president to be born an American citizen was Martin Van Buren.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...e_US#Executive

I'm guessing this is either because they didn't give a $#@! or because Bingham was 22 by then and people started to take him seriously.

Our consistent benchmark is either the original intent of the Constitution, or nothing, otherwise we are in no better position to complain about politicians fudging their adherence to it at will.

Liberty is the consistent benchmark. We may fight and bitch over the meaning but the same happens with the Constitution. Difference is, your hands are tied, mine are not.

[PAF]

..

[Ronin Truth]

Who is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America

A "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused). This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for presidency - and only for presidency, being clearly distinguished from ordinary citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in any later statutes, because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source "Law of Nations" is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular - against piracies and felonies on high seas).

According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that:

Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country. Vattel's own note on the margin of his book refers to the Roman law: NEMO PLUS JURIS TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning "No one can give more rights than he himself has" (by Dr. A. Altec). Except for Obama/Soetoro, the Vattel definition had been always applied, the last precedent being the US Senate resolution 511 in 2008 (also here and here) acknowledging Sen. McCain as a natural born citizen.

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).

Often "Natural born citizenship" is confused with §1401 of the US Code "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth". Although the words sound similar, §1401 defines only ordinary citizenship including such shallow one as that of anchor babies (i.e. born to legal guests of the country, §1401(a), never mind illegal residents).

The Constitution clearly and explicitly excludes ordinary citizenship for presidency: ordinary citizenship was reserved only for the presidential candidates - contemporaries of the Framers (referred as the grandfather clause). Definitely the "Natural born citizenship" is not the same as ordinary citizenship, but something stronger. By not explicitly quoting the Vattel's definition, the Constitution therefore leaves some room for confusions. (Many such confusions resulted of deliberate efforts of "progressives" to erode the basic constitutional concepts inconvenient for them).

Fortunately there exists (at least) one original US document directly defining the "Natural born citizenship" according to Emerich de Vattel. This document (which does have legal binding) is the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 (see below).

Other arguments in favor of the definition of Vattel are the following. The Framers (in their correspondence) explicitly wished to exclude dual loyalty, and explicitly required that the US citizenship of the president be deeper than ordinary citizenship (such as that of their contemporaries). After all, any one can acquire an ordinary US citizenship in some point of one's life, so the Framers clearly excluded this kind of citizenship. On the contrary, the Natural Born Citizenship cannot be acquired: it may be only inherited.


After the Framers, all the presidential contenders (up to Sen. McCain in 2008 but not Obama) did officially satisfy this definition, demonstrating continuity of the meaning "Natural born citizenship" consistent with that of Vattel . (In the past only one President Chester Arthur 1881-1885 violated it, hiding and destroying the traces of the British citizenship of his father, discovered only after his death. The carefully hidden violation of Chester Arthur in fact is an additional argument that the Vattel's definition was valid and he was aware of it).



Not only did the continuity and understanding of the Vattel meaning of the "Natural born citizenship" take place well up to 2008: It was clearly disliked and stood on the way of somebody's "progressive aspirations". Since 2002 some members of the US Congress had made various attempts to rid of the concept Natural Born Citizen many years prior to Obama, which all have failed (here, here, and here). So finally in 2008 they simply violated the Constitutional requirement, created the precedent and therefore de-facto have changed the Constitution without any due constitutional process. It was "The Audacity of Dope", rephrasing the notorious title.


In 2008 nobody even attempted to hide the foreign citizenship of Obama's biological father - an open into the face overt violation of the Constitution. Worse, no personal documents of Obama at all have been ever verified. The perpetrators and enablers have been the media, both big and all the small parties, plus the three branches of government, who overlooked and orchestrated ascendance of the impostor into the White House - while the majority of American people didn't care, were hoodwinked, or brain dead.

This brain dead crowd still maintains the consensus of silencing and suppression of the truth, cheering the procession and wonderful clothes of the proverbial Emperor without clothes, while the cheer leaders keep an eye on those attempting to speak out the truth.


The former bright city on the hill turned into a despicable laughing stock for the entire world;

Into a chess board where the checkmate was made, but the winner retreats;

Into a poker game with a bluffer whose cards are never opened;

Into a procession of fools around an emperor without cloth, the procession which never ends.

Summary

1) With only one parent American citizen (the mother) and the father - a foreigner, Obama/Soetoro is definitely not a natural born citizen no matter where he was born and what is in his hidden full birth certificate.

2) His Indonesian upbringing and citizenship had abrogated his natural born American citizenship (if it were valid). Getting back to America he may become only a naturalized citizen: definitely not natural born.

3) Obama's authentic birth certificate at best can only prove him to be an ordinary U.S. citizen according to §1401(a): definitely not a natural born U.S. citizen. (Fixation on his hidden birth certificate is misguiding, just like the pejorative term "birther", invented by those who want to deflect attention from the obvious issues lying on the very surface and not requiring any birth certificate).

4) On the top of it, Obama is a plain fraudster . His recently shown copy of the full birth certificate appeared to be a coarse forgery. He had obtained an invalid Social Security number 042-68-4425, that he currently uses. It was issued in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890. Obama illegally assumed this number, as Dr. Taitz and her collaborators have discovered.

http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm

[The Free Hornet]

Perhaps we will work well together. And no, my hands are NEVER tied, as will you soon discover.

That comment was more for Peace&Freedom.

I just never see myself as a Constitutionalist. The copyright clause, many of the amendements (prohibition), slavery-anti-slavery-yet-somehow-a-draft-is-permitted BS, taxation and related amendments, the easily misinterprested general welfare and interstate commerce stuff. Mainly I don't "agree to agree" to the amendment or legal process either. It seems by being a Constitutionalist - however superior it may seem - I get none of the value because the modern state won't change as a result of documents ignored for decades. More so, I'd be lending consent in areas the TPTB simply don't deserve.

They wanted a constitution with stronger Federal government, got it, and proceed to ignore all limitations, so the deal is broke. End of story. It would have to be a far, far better constitution to get my support.

[mosquitobite]

Repeated attempts have been made to change the clause:

H. J. RES. 67 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Sept. 3, 2003)

H. J. RES. 104 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years. (Sept. 15, 2004)

H. J. RES. 2 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. (Jan. 4, 2005)

H. J. RES. 15 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years. (Feb. 1, 2005)

S. 2678 - Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), tried to attach to SB 2678 an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors. (Feb. 28, 2008)

It is clear - a natural born citizen is a child born of TWO parents of the same citizenship. This is 'jus sanguinis' not 'jus soli'. It is our duty to know our laws in order to defend and protect against those who wish to see the Constitution dead.

____


[courtesy of stm]

This right here should be PROOF they were grooming Obama for the office. And when they couldn't get the law changed, they just forged a certificate.

[TaftFan]

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[idiom]

So is Cruz screwed or not?

Any of the Cruz boosters actually seen his mothers long form birth certificate?

[erowe1]

Fact 1: A Natural Born Citizen is any citizen who is a citizen from the time or their birth.

Fact 2: The laws that define what must be true of someone for them to be a citizen at the time of their birth can change, but these changing laws do not change the fact that a natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth.

Fact 3: Nothing in the OP goes against Facts 1 and 2.

[erowe1]

So is Cruz screwed or not?

No. He is a natural born citizen, since he has been a citizen since his birth.

[idiom]

No. He is a natural born citizen, since he has been a citizen since his birth.

Born in Canada to a mother of vauge citizenship qualifies as natural born now?

[erowe1]

Born in Canada to a mother of vauge citizenship qualifies as natural born now?

If it makes him a citizen, then yes, it makes him natural born.

Anyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth is a natural born citizen.

What do you mean by "now"? Is this a change from how it used to be?

[PAF]

- Senator Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and thus automatically a Canadian citizen. Cruz's father was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba, his mother born in Wilmington, Delaware. Cruz announced that he is renouncing his Canadian citizenship. [See “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution for President and by the 12th Amendment for Vice President.]

After his student visa expired, Rafael Cruz obtained political asylum in the U.S. He then found work with the oil industry in Canada, where Ted Cruz was born. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz became a Canadian citizen while in Canada. While his son was serving as solicitor general of Texas in 2005, Rafael Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship and became an American citizen.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...slon-Cruz-Bios

[69360]

Cruz is eligible so was Obama. Birtherism does nothing but stigmatize the candidate you support.

[Ronin Truth]

Cruz is eligible so was Obama. Birtherism does nothing but stigmatize the candidate you support.

Since apparently the laws no longer matter. How about Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS?

[erowe1]

Since apparently the laws no longer matter. How about Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS?

Schwarzenegger is disqualified by the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen. Cruz and Obama are.

[Natural Citizen]

Cruz is eligible so was Obama. Birtherism does nothing but stigmatize the candidate you support.

What the heck is birtherism? Starting to read or hear of a new ism every day.

Oh, never mind. I sometimes forget my own sig.

I think that natural citizenship is a very important topic for debate and shouldn't be relegated to natural "born" citizenship for what it's worth. That simply waters down the significance of the manipulation of citizenship in general.

I want to see Monsanto's birth certificate. Maybe Wal-Mart's. Or Google's. These are the "People" who need to have some citizenship revoked and whom enjoy a vast deal of influence over policy that affects natural citizens.Ted Cruz is just another fly by nighter that we'll forget about in a few years from now imo. He's a stalking horse for the very powers that helped to put us in the mess we're in and now they want their power back since the political infrastructure is in a state of complete tyranny and they have a democrat to blame it on while reaping the rewards. A poser....

[erowe1]

- Senator Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and thus automatically a Canadian citizen. Cruz's father was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba, his mother born in Wilmington, Delaware. Cruz announced that he is renouncing his Canadian citizenship. [See “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution for President and by the 12th Amendment for Vice President.]

After his student visa expired, Rafael Cruz obtained political asylum in the U.S. He then found work with the oil industry in Canada, where Ted Cruz was born. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz became a Canadian citizen while in Canada. While his son was serving as solicitor general of Texas in 2005, Rafael Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship and became an American citizen.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...slon-Cruz-Bios

What about his American citizenship? When did Cruz get that?

[Ronin Truth]

Schwarzenegger is disqualified by the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen. Cruz and Obama are.

According to who?

[erowe1]

According to who?

The naturalization laws that have been passed by Congress, which the Constitution delegates the authority to legislate laws of naturalization.

[tommyrp12]

It is our duty to know our laws in order to defend and protect against those who wish to see the Constitution dead.

Its fairly useless as it originally pertains to the founders and their posterity and trustees only. Not us.

I'm not so sure being a citizen is a good thing too. I don't want to be one.

Forced induction into a private society subject to fake positive laws written by a few guys in a territory under the threat of violence and or death is called involuntary servitude.
Citizenship = slavery.

"We the People of the United States <(the estate)>, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

CAPITALIZATION RULES
8. countries, nationalities, and specific languages
10. names of national, political, racial, social, civic, and athletic groups
16. salutations and closings in letters - first word only unless proper name is used

In a relevant sense, a trust can be viewed as a generic form of a corporation where the settlors (investors) are also the beneficiaries

28 USC § 3002 - Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

In the United States, the settlor is also called the trustor, grantor, donor or creator. In some other jurisdictions, the settlor may also be known as the founder.

I'm not them or their posterity. Im not a trustee ,I don't have a oath, so that just leaves chattel.

Chattel
An item of Personal Property that is movable; it may be animate or inanimate.

Chattels are synonymous with goods or personalty.

PERSONALITY. An abstract of personal; as, the action is in the personalty, that is, it is brought against a person for a personal duty which he owes. It also signifies what belongs to the person; as, personal property.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

So to be a person there has to be a rank in society that he holds, but a man is a human being weather he belongs to that society or not.

Free human being > civil person/a

[Peace&Freedom]

Fact 1: A Natural Born Citizen is any citizen who is a citizen from the time or their birth.

Not by the original intent Constitutional standard as documented by the OP and other posters. It is that standard that governs whether someone qualifies as 'natural born' as per the Founders' intention, not ordinary language constructions.

Fact 2: The laws that define what must be true of someone for them to be a citizen at the time of their birth can change, but these changing laws do not change the fact that a natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth.

The law, the Constitution being the superceding one, defines the legal facts pertaining to one's status, not ordinary language constructions.

Fact 3: Nothing in the OP goes against Facts 1 and 2.

Nothing in the ordinary language constructions of claimed "Facts 1 and 2" invalidates anything in the OP.

[erowe1]

Not by the original intent Constitutional standard as documented by the OP and other posters

That is false.

The phrase "natural born" was a perfectly normal idiom in English at the time of the Constitution, and it meant just what I said. What it meant to be a natural born anything was to be that thing from the time of one's birth.

As I said, they may have had specific laws that defined legally what would have to be true of someone in order for them to be a citizen at the time of their birth. But those laws could change just like any other laws. As those laws change, it would continue to be the case that a natural born citizen would be anyone who has been a citizen since their birth, which is the same thing that phrase meant in the original Constitution.

[erowe1]

Nothing in the ordinary language constructions of claimed "Facts 1 and 2" invalidates anything in the OP.

It's what the OP is pushing that's wrong, which is the notion that just because the Constitution uses the phrase "natural born citizen," we have some obligation to apply the same laws about how to be a natural born citizen that were in place at some earlier time in America's history, such that people who are citizens at the time of their birth according to these later laws would not qualify constitutionally as natural born citizens.

[CPUd]

Schwarzenegger is disqualified by the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen. Cruz and Obama are.

Yes, I remember there was a lot of discussion about an amendment in 2003-2006, because they were wanting him to run for President in 2008. At the same time, people in Austria were wanting him to come back there and run.

[RonZeplin]

So is Cruz screwed or not?

He's doubly ineligible being born of a Cuban father, in Canada.

The list of ineligible candidates:

Barack Obama - double?
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Ted Cruz - double
Bill Richardson
Marco Rubio - double
Bobby Jindal - ?


Ronald Reagan left -Natural Born, Barack Obama right - Native Born

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

[Valli6]

Consult the same source that the founders consulted to understand their intent.

The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns - Emer De Vattel
Chapter 19, Section 212 - Citizens and Natives (p.101)

"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 to what it owes to it's 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 father is therefore that of the children."

http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b...vattel&f=false

Justice Marshall's opinion reiterates this definition. Only an ammendment would alter this.