And yet, there he sits in the White House twice elected POTUS.Originally Posted by Valli6
False. The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to legislate naturalization. If anyone is a US citizen at the time of their birth according to US law, then they are, according to the very same definition that obtained when the Constitution was ratified, a natural born citizen.
Vattel defines "natural-born" citizenship and "naturalized" citizenship separately.
If you are a "naturalized" citizen, it's because you were not "naturally-born" (which would make naturalization unnecessary.) Natural-born citizenship means that specific circumstances were true at the time of birth. It's not something that can come about through naturalization or any other process. A child born in America to a non-citizen may be a naturalized citizen, but that doesn't make him natural-born.
I think(?) it is correct to say that "natural-born" refers to a law of nature, while "naturalized" refers to a law created by men. You can never alter a law of nature, only the laws of men.
The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns
Chapter 19, Section 213 - Naturalization (p.102)
http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b...vattel&f=falseA nation or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of a citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization.
… there are states, as, for instance England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
Someone is a "natural born X" if they were an X from the time of their birth on. This is what that idiom has always meant, including when the Constitution was ratified.
The question of what is required for someone to be a citizen at the time of their birth is a legal one, subject to whatever laws obtain at that time. It doesn't matter what those laws were at the time of the Constitution. If the laws at the time of Cruz's birth made him a citizen, then he is a natural born citizen, and he is one by the same definition of "natural born citizen" as the one intended in the original Constitution. The fact that there was a different law at that time doesn't change that.
In fact, as I re-read your post, I don't even see anything that weighs against what I said. Cruz was not naturalized. He was a US citizen since his birth.
The following is from the Oxford English Dictionary. Notice the years of the examples.
1. Having a specified position, nationality, etc., by birth; native-born. See naturally born adj. at naturally adv. 11a. Cf. also natural adj. 14a.
1583 Ld. Burghley Execution of Iustice sig. E.iii, D. Sanders a natural borne Subiect but an unnaturall worne priest.
1598 W. Phillip tr. J. H. van Linschoten Disc. Voy. E. & W. Indies i. xxix. 53/2 The children of Mestiços are of colour and fashion like the naturall borne Countrimen.
1625 in H. L'Estrange Reign King Charles (1655) 21 Divers of the naturall-born subjects of this Kingdome..do..claim precedency of the Peers of this Realm.
1695 Act 7 & 8 Will. III (1696) 478 A Natural born Subject of this Realm..Who shall be willing to Enter and Register himself for the Service of His Majesty.
1709 Act 7 Anne c. 5 §3 The Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her Majesty..shall be deemed..to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom.
1776 in T. Jefferson Public Papers 344 All persons who..propose to reside..and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws, shall be considered as residents and entitled to all the rights of persons natural born.
1833 Penny Cycl. I. 338/2 It is not true that every person, born out of the dominion of the crown, is therefore an alien; nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject.
1866 G. Bancroft Hist. U.S. IX. xxvi. 439 Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen.
1910 Encycl. Brit. I. 662/2 A natural-born British woman, having become an alien by marriage, and thereafter being a widow, may be rehabilitated under conditions slightly more favourable than are required for naturalization.
1965 New Statesman 30 Apr. 670/2 He proclaims proudly, in a modulated Birmingham accent that makes him sound like a well-bred Australian: ‘I'm a natural born Brummie.’
2001 Hong Kong Imail (Nexis) 23 July, The territory's highest court ruled that only natural-born Hong Kong children were entitled to the right of abode.
(Hide quotations)
2. Having a specified character or constitution from birth. Cf. born adj. 5b.
1835 J. P. Kennedy Horse-shoe Robinson I. xiii. 251 Wat talks like a natural born fool.
1897 M. Kingsley Trav. W. Afr. 137 The chief being a natural-born idiot, came with two of his head men.
1918 W. Cather My Ántonia iv. iii. 359 Ántonia is a natural-born mother. I wish she could marry and raise a family, but I don't know as there's much chance now.
1958 J. Kerouac On Road 71 Everybody in America is a natural-born thief.
1994 Gazette (Montreal) 5 Nov. j1/4 The authors..present Trudeau as a natural-born, big ‘L’ Liberal instead of a trendy rich socialist.
Last edited by erowe1; 01-08-2014 at 03:35 PM.
These guys were natural born:
The Presidents prior to Van Buren were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution - the exception to be a natural born citizen allowed by the Constitution. There were no natural born American citizens prior to Van Buren because they were born English citizens, during colonial times.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan, 1981
Thanks - I regretted posting that argument for that reason. I was too hasty.
John McCain was NOT a NBC.
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us...cain.html?_r=0
The Canal Zone had nothing to do with it. McCain was born in a hospital in the nation of Panama, outside the Zone. He is a natural born citizen because the children of active duty military personnel stationed overseas are natural born citizens by federal statute.
The political semantics of natural born can be debated all day because of the differences between how allegiance was derived among English and French at the time of the revolution. There is an absolute line on this topic and that line is an operation of law. If citizenship derives from an operation of law it can not logically be natural because citizenship derived from an operation of law is the essence of naturalized. One can not logically acquire natural born citizenship by federal statute because that would be deriving citizenship from positive law which makes citizenship acquired by an operation of law versus the physical act of being natural born which is something that occurs in nature. Federal statutes can only naturalize as power has only been delegated to define a rule of naturalization. There has been no power delegated to define, establish rules for, or regulate natural born. Defining, establishing rules for, or regulating natural born citizenship is not necessary or proper to exercise any delegated powers. For all of the linguistic or semantic cleverness of attorneys they have not enough common sense to defeat sound logic and reason.
Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. -Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition
Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a. person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. -Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition
Natural. Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". Department of Public Works and Bldgs. for and in Behalf of People v. Keller, 22 Ill.App.3d 54, 316 N.E.2d 794, 796. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal;" and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions. -Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition
NATURAL. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal;" and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions -Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition
On a side note, the so called legal juristic definitions of natural key on things that are attributable to the nature of man, as distinguished from positive enactments of law. If one were to define natural born it would be wise to define it in such terms that can be attributed to the nature of man. Any such definition would be logically consistent and extremely sound.
Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 03-09-2015 at 04:13 PM.
^^ this ^^
+ rep.
There is an absolute line on this topic and that line is an operation of law. If citizenship derives from an operation of law it can not logically be natural because citizenship derived from an operation of law is the essence of naturalized. One can not logically acquire natural born citizenship by federal statute because that would be deriving citizenship from positive law which makes citizenship acquired by an operation of law versus the physical act of being natural born which is something that occurs in nature.
Last edited by HVACTech; 03-09-2015 at 04:56 PM.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
A good article i found today.
Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?
An Analysis of President Lincoln's
Legal Arguments Against Secession
by James Ostrowski
The 14th amendment is defective for being ratified under duress.It also seemed to have changed the relationship between the people and the government. From sovereign individuals with inalienable rights to chattel (citizens/legal persons) with privileges and immunities subject to the governments jurisdiction.CONCLUSION
The Union's invasion and subsequent military occupation of the Confederacy were illegal. Today, however, the Fourteenth Amendment arguably prohibits secession by implication. Nevertheless, that Amendment, insofar as it can be interpreted to bar state secession — is tainted. It is the direct result of the illegal invasion and subsequent military domination of the South. Even the Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly outlaw secession, and there remains a conflict between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in this regard. This conflict should be resolved by reference to the doctrine of inalienable rights, of which secession is one.
The quote below is not from the article.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [...] and have none to govern but themselves[.] --Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 - Supreme Court 1793
this.
i know some of you dislike Cruz, as do i, but this issue is a distraction only.
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 05-21-2016 at 11:14 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 05-21-2016 at 11:14 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
I honestly had no desire to jump into this, but you do know it's not idiom that defines the meaning of words and phrases in law right? Law uses lawyer language, not idiom language. That practice predates the American colonies, and the Framers were well away of legalese. Under English Common Law, you can't look to idiom, but to precedent.
Bear in mind that I don't actually care about this issue. It's a non-starter. The PTB ignore the most important parts of the Constitution every day. Expecting them to honor this, much more minor part is expecting the impossible. I am minded to agree with a more rigorous definition of Natural Born Citizen per original intent; and we see that Congress themselves defined it in 1790 (Post 10) less rigorous than the Law of Nations, but clearly more rigorously than just a citizen from birth.
The 1790 law leaves open a lot of questions, but it's obvious intent was the same as before mentioned, a bulwark against dual, and possibly conflicting loyalties. Really, strictly by original intent, a candidate Obama may be precisely what they were trying to prevent, and would have if they had defined it a little better.
But at the end of the day it's irrelevant. Not enough people care about the big things like the right to assemble, speak, bear arms, and privacy. They sure aren't going to care about some dusty legalistic interpretation of a citizenship requirement buried in the Constitution that nobody actually reads anyway. Let's take back the right to self determination first, and then worry about the smaller stuff once we teach them to care about it.
At this stage of the United States and in this state of madness, the citizen question has become a distraction. TPTB rejoice when they see it come up again, because they know it will keep everyone absorbed, and nothing can ever possible come of it.
Was like a second from getting really personally offended.
Too much painkiller.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
Yet another example of the weaknesses of the Constitution. The natural born requirement may have made sense in the days of framing, and I am not nearly convinced that it did, but it most certainly no longer makes sense in the wake of the past 228 years of experience, especially that of the last 50. Does anyone here really believe that, had Bammy's parents been even "natural born" themselves that they would have raised him to love this land? Forgive me, but you would have to be stupid beyond that of a napkin to accept that as even plausible, much less likely. It appears to me that his parents were marginalized, disenfranchised, self-hating examples of the bottom of the human barrel. They produced a child and he was raised on hatred of self, his fellows, and apparently taught that the imposition of equal misery for all ****-sapiens was the only just and fitting circumstance for global mankind.
Would the child of Eldridge Cleaver and Angela Davis (ouch), being a "natural born" citizen, have been a guaranteed "loyal" American?
The concept of "loyalty" is almost idiotic, save when applied in the most specific terms. To speak of "loyalty" in the apparently broad manner found in the Constitution either never had any meaning of sufficient specificity across the spectrum of its use, or that meaning has been lost. Either way, we would have to define it for ourselves a second time, thereby demonstrating once again the weakness of the document, the weakness of such documents in general, and the precarious nature of language demonstrating precisely why training in language skills and a measure of sternness in the regard of its use is so damned critical to the inter-generational propagation of knowledge.
The example of Obama also underscores the terribly precarious position in which Americans have to foolishly placed themselves. The man is clearly a treasonous puppet, merrily waving at us from someone's back pocket while wearing the deeply smug expression on his kisser - and yet, we appear either unwilling or unable to remove him to the end of a rope where he belongs. It is now clear that the "loyalty" of a high-ranking government official matters no whit in terms of his ability to operate as such an official with apparent impunity. We have a Congress and a Cabinet full of the squirming, slimy little darlings.
Spooner was right when he wrote that the Constitution has proven itself inadequate to its ostensible task. Of course it is - it is merely words on a sheet of paper. It cannot stand up under its own will and enforce its own principles and structural dictates. Spooner failed in not placing the real onus upon the people who allowed the vagaries of the document to be exploited in the ways resulting in the gross violation of rights of which no man or group thereof holds authority to elide. Our Constitution is a mistake upon mistakes because it focuses on all the things that lead to tyranny while paying only the most passing lip service to the actual rights it purports to hold as its raison d'être. Sometimes I honestly wonder whether the Framers were playing a huge and ultimately not-so-funny joke upon the posterity for whom they claimed to have established this new nation.
In the days of the Framers, perhaps it may be argued that the Constitution is what we needed. Perhaps my vision of a properly freed people would have been too big a step to take in those days. Perhaps the subsequent loss of the generally palpable moral framework that existed in those days is more a cause our currently pitiable political circumstance than the deficiencies of the Constitution itself, given the lassitude and morbid avarice to which it has lead.
All I know is that things have changed because mind has changed. Whatever it may once have been, it is clear to me that the Constitution is no longer sufficient to its ostensible task of limiting government because the minds of the vast majority of the people have been lead so far astray of the proverbial "straight and narrow" that I see little chance of bringing that document back to its proper relevancy without a massively concerted and sufficiently broad effort to reeducate people in the fundamental principles of proper human relations. Inculcate the race with these and documents such as the Constitution become virtually irrelevant. Were people well trained in proper human relations, their full freedoms restored, in time a new equilibrium would emerge and the empowered individual would, through his sense of enlightened self-interest, become the sentinel of all human rights. A nation of such men would become incorruptible precisely because it would be self-correcting. When the individual is allowed his rightful power to remove life itself from those who violate him, the land quickly settles into an equilibrium of respect of one man for his fellows on the knowledge that his outlandish behavior toward his fellows could likely result in his immediate extinguishment from the book of life.
That may seem harsh to some, but it is not. The mere threat of such outcomes is much like the threat of a homeowner with a firearm before an intruder. Rarely are shots fired. The mere threat of the homeowner's credible force against the criminal is almost universally sufficient to halt the perfidy in its tracks. So would it be with the general state of human relations. People would, by and large, see the light rapidly and come to a new mind in terms of their places in the world in relation to their fellows. There are extant examples of this currently observable to anyone with eyes seeking to see. Go to NYC or NJ and observe people. You will see with some frequency people acting in idiotic ways toward others. Rush hour traffic is a great place to observe such interactions such as the display of certain fingers, much swearing and cursing one man against another, as well as the occasionally ill-advised threat of bodily harm. Now teleport to, say, West Virginia where just about everyone carries a gun. In my 8 years in WV, I have seen exactly ONE act of impolite expression, a middle finger. That's it - and yes, I attribute this largely to the ubiquitous carriage of firearms, the knowledge of which tends to keep people's thoughts in a better state of circumspection than in places such as NYC.
As far as I am concerned, the office of President should be an unpaid, part-time position whose sole purpose is to act as Commander In Chief. I see no need for a Congress and question the need for courts, save perhaps in the rarest of instances where for whatever reason justice has been unattainable by other, more efficient and just means.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
The slurpers of Obama do this on every front. It is the way of the progressive. Baffle them with bull$#@! and, failing that, go into stonewall-denial mode. Seems to work like a charm every time.
Excellently stated. Selectivity is very much a two-edged blade.Since this is the same approach to Constitutional issues that non-liberty people take when it comes to every other topic, it means we lose the Constitutional high ground when we also become selective about which of its provisions we will defend. Undeclared wars? That's okay, because the War Powers Act gives the Executive sufficient authority. Federal Reserve? That's okay too, as Congress passed a statute a century ago to let the banks issue fiat currency, regardless of the Constitution's demand that only the Treasury may do so, and that it be based on gold and silver. Patriot Act et al? Well, the courts have basically upheld it...
This is precise truth.Our consistent benchmark is either the original intent of the Constitution, or nothing, otherwise we are in no better position to complain about politicians fudging their adherence to it at will.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Y'all are just going to have to forgive me for this. I'm sorry, but not enough to not post this. I warn you beforehand that eye-protection may be needed. Likely, in fact.
Pony up the rep, folks. Here's the money shot.Liberty is the consistent benchmark.
One of the better posts I've read lately. Nicely done. The dip$#@! thing was a riot.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Don't much care, overall, given the almost assured outcome of the ascension of yet another klown-marionette to the office.
What will be interesting, however, is whether the "left" will raise the citizenship issue in the cases of Cruz or, I presume, Rubio. On that account, it would be really cool to see one of them as a GOP front-runner just to see whether the progressives start banging on that door. The presumption of intelligence and basic sense would set the presumption that no, they would not dare go there. And yet, we are witness to such wild insanity on a daily basis, blaring it shrill product across the face of the land, that I would in no way be surprised to see them going at it, full throttle. I further admit that my curiosity, having gone full-retard, would permit me to look the other way regarding the further dangers that putting a little Klown like Cruz into the Office, for the sake of seeing the left violate all basic and sane sense. I'd just like to see it, that I might cement my knowledge of just how deeply lost we are as a people, that we would for even a brief moment tolerate such raving idiocy, much less decade over decade.
I'm getting the popcorn, a large stash of beer, turning down the lights, and getting good and comfy in wait. I hope not to be disappointed.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
$#@! that noise. How about me? There's your $#@!ing liberty candidate.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
WHOM, God damn it. Words matter.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
These guys were natural born:
Bet there wasn't a president in the lot, either.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
"At this point what difference does it make ?"
“[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)
How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?
OP, so you don't consider the 14th amendment part of the constitution? It says anyone born under US jurisdiction is a natural born citizen. US jurisdiction = wherever US law applies, meaning US territory (minus foreign embassies?), as well as US military bases and embassies in other countries.
And if someone has PROOF Obama was not born here, to contradict the Hawaii newspaper that reported his birth before anyone expected him to run for president, please show it. Saying he wasn't born here, or pointing out Obama's lack of evidence, is not proof (since Obama WANTS you to scream he's not born here, you're not catching him or hurting him in any way).
Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,
This you will do, that's our strong, firm belief.
Hail to the one we selected as commander,
Hail to the President! Hail to the Chief!
Cruz is not eligible. Read entire O/P.
John Jay's language and delegate George Washington introduction of that clause for the commander-in-chief (which passed) or for Senators (which did not pass)
is clear and was what was voted on at the constitutional convention in the summer of 1787 -
also clear by the dispute whether VP Chester Arthur was native-born because of what side of the Canada - Vermont border the family home was on.
No real push to amend that clause of the US Constitution, yet enough voters will reject a Canadian-born candidate in a general election is certain.
It will definitely be a general election loss though.
fwiw, the Pennsylvania colony delegate that was NOT born in the colonies (but rather, in Scotland) is what convinced the constitutional convention to vote down the native-born clause for the legislative branch - born in the colonies was considered native-born for the commander-in-chief constitutional requirement.
But the Scot would never be President for that caveat.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us