5.38K
Interactions

In order to qualify to be president, the U.S. Constitution states, “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.”

So what defines a “natural-born citizen”?  The answer has not been so simple over the years. The framers left it fairly vague and up to us to interpret throughout our history, and it is an issue that has gone back and forth.

This has all been brought into question as a result of one man whom various media outlets have kept an eye on as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. The man in question is freshman U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. His parents were working in the oil business there. Cruz’s father did not become a U.S. citizen until 2005. So though he has made trips to Iowa and the media seems to be watching him quite closely, does he even meet the qualifications of being a natural-born citizen?

145731159_640

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “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.”

This still only leaves a very vague definition for what constitutes a natural-born citizen. So now we look toward Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.

So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural-born citizen. And yes, that means that there will be legal challenges and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will have to make sure such legislation does not violate the Constitution in any way… including Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

In the case Minor v. Happersett (1875), the court ruled, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” – Minor v. Happersett

Though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural-born citizen, Congress has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap. Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural-born citizens:

  • Anyone born inside the United States. The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president as he would not qualify as a natural-born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the U.S.

However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument. The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.” is a citizen.

Does this change the argument? If it is grouped with Section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, then it would appear so.

Currently, citizenship in the U.S. is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  The most recent changes to statutory law was done by Congress in 2001. So since this most recent debate has circulated around Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one U.S. citizen.

There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth, which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986. A person born abroad between those dates is a U.S. citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

  1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth;
  2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born;
  3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth; and
  4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Cruz is a natural-born citizen and thus meets the qualifications to run for president if he decided to do so. This also does one more thing, as well.

image005

In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his U.S. mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

As I stated at the beginning, this issue is a complicated mess. The Framers left it vague when they wrote the Constitution. Did they do it because they couldn’t foresee our future situations or was it so we could make such a determination as our nation progressed? One can only really speculate on that.

Regardless, we have done our best to set forth a definition, and one that holds for all Americans — born here and born abroad. The laws have changed throughout our history, and they will probably change again in our future.

For now, we go by the laws which we have — the laws in which we live by — the laws that govern our society. They apply to us all equally. In this confusing mixture, I hope there has been some small sense to the issue and that now we can have a better understanding of it.

About the Author

James Spurgeon
James Spurgeon

James has a degree in communications and works within the media. He knows how to research any topic that he writes about… approaching the topic from both sides of the issue and break them down. He doesn’t consider himself a Democrat or a Republican.

Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

712 comments
Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@DavidFarrar 

Digital High-five!

I'm glad to see fellow Patriots standing up for the Constitution.

Like Obama, who campaigned around saying all kinds of nice things about stopping the rise in debt limit, stopping illegal executive orders, bringing transparency to government...

Ted Cruz is illegally trying to take office while saying all kinds of nice things to curry favor.

Ted Cruz is Barack Obama 2.0

We cannot judge him by his words. His actions prove he does not mean them.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@DavidFarrar @Speak2Truth 

He may well be running interference for Barack Obama.

He may be an agent of the North American Union, being snuck in there, just as the Left snuck Obama in, saying all kinds of wonderful things while bringing foreign influence into the White House.

Remember, few people really understood the extent of Obama's foreign connections to evil folks until long after he was in office. Who he really was, was carefully concealed from the American public.


I wish I could trust Ted Cruz. If he were vying for the post of Secretary of State or perhaps Supreme Court Justice, I might not have reason to doubt his integrity. Running for President raises huge red flags and I mean that in the way Socialists like to wave those things around.


There is something rotten in Denmark.


DavidFarrar
DavidFarrar

@Speak2Truth @DavidFarrar


Yes, you bring up a very good question. One I have been thinking about too. We know that he knows what he is and what he isn't ...what's his game? Is he running interference for someone, perhaps JEB? Walker? or somebody waiting out in the wings?

RodPrather
RodPrather

@Speak2Truth @DavidFarrar "THE LEFT SNUCK IN OBAMA"  God, you certainly are a conspiracy theorist.  Obama was born in HAWAII..  Nobody "SNUCK HIM IN".  You're comments about Obama's COLB being falsified are borderline humorous.

DavidFarrar
DavidFarrar

Sen Cruz is a naturalized US citizen at birth via Congress's naturalization statutes i.e., Title 8 U.S.C. §1401(g) Once naturalized at birth, I can find no other law requiring such persons naturalized at birth to go through a second naturalization procedure at some time later.

An Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen is a person born subject to no foreign power, with one allegiance, and one allegiance only, to support and abide by the US Constitution.

Again, there are only two ways to acquire US citizenship from birth: naturally or by statute. Naturally acquiring US citizenship by birth is done so without any statutory provision. Acquiring US citizenship at birth via statute can only be accomplished by Congress through its naturalization authority. If one needs the grace of Congress in order to be a citizen of the United States from birth, one is most certainly not a natural born citizen. 

Remember, we had original citizens and natural born citizens before there was a Fourteenth Amendment or the naturalization Acts of Congress.

Those who care nothing, or know nothing, about the natural born citizenship clause contained in Article ll, care nothing, or know nothing, about who the "We" are in "We the People".



MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@DavidFarrar And those who ignore newer legislation that has yet to be challenged Constitutionally know nothing about who the "We" are in "We the People".

RodPrather
RodPrather

@DavidFarrar Nah, Being born to two American Citizens on foreign soil gives you Natural Born Citizen Status.  Being born to once Citizen Parent and one foreign born parent gives you Natural Born Status in most cases with a few exceptions.   This is especially true if those parents are in the military or if the parent or parents are serving on foreign soil for diplomatic reasons.

It is confusing.  I tend to agree that this needs to be put into a single document and put through as an amendment but Congress has been afraid to do so.  Doubt that Congress could ever agree on these rules though. 

 

DavidFarrar
DavidFarrar

@RodPrather @DavidFarrar


You are as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine, but anyone can make a statement, but without citing your source, that all it is all they are...your delusions.


Now try it again, with proper citing of case law, or statute, or simply go away quietly, with your tail between your legs.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@RodPrather @DavidFarrar 

We can look at the same source the Founders did when they wrote the Constitution, if we want to know what a natural-born citizen is.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations
 

You, like EVERYONE else, have absolutely failed to demonstrate there was any other definition known to them except the one they had in writing.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@RodPrather @Speak2Truth @DavidFarrar 

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master;... A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Alexander Hamilton


I'm looking at the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It is not changing. Therefore, neither is the Constitution, which all our laws must obey in order to be laws.

 

 "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

DavidFarrar
DavidFarrar

@RodPrather @Speak2Truth @DavidFarrar


Yes, you are right, the lowers courts, Ankney v Indiana, have stated that anyone born within the jurisdiction, regardless of their parents' citizenship status is an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen.


But such is not the case with Sen Cruz. Here the courts repeatedly observed a person foreign-born of domicilium US citizen parent(s) is a naturalized US citizen at birth. 


So when Sen Cruz tells us he is a US citizen at birth, having never been required to go through a naturalization procedure at some later time, that makes him an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen he is being duplicitous, to be kind. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@DavidFarrar @Speak2Truth @RodPrather 

I was replying to Rod Prather. This system is a bit tricky, in figuring out to whom exactly a reply is made.

You and I both know the definition that the Founders knew. Heck, they had it spelled out in black and white for them. Some people are trying very hard to get it wrong.

DavidFarrar
DavidFarrar

@Speak2Truth @DavidFarrar @RodPrather


Yes, it is a bit tricky. Sorry. Did you know, there is not one word in the entire legislative intent surrounding the creation of the actual wording of the 14th Amendment that was supports the overly broad interpretation our courts have consistently given to the 14th Amendment? 


The legislative intent was quite clear; it was simply meant to "constitutionalize" the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and, as I say, its jurisdictional section simply states, no person born subject to a foreign power can be born a US citizen. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@DavidFarrar @Speak2Truth @RodPrather 

It's amazing how the Constitution has been perverted by simply pretending it means something else.

...

In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”


Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”


Clearly, "anchor babies" do not qualify to be Citizens under the 14th Amendment any more than Barack Obama and Ted Cruz qualify to be Natural Born Citizens.


There is the question of 8 USC 1401, which seems to have changed things a bit, as far as making citizens.

DavidFarrar
DavidFarrar

@Speak2Truth @RodPrather @DavidFarrar


But that is the definition I have consistently supported, although I do believe the authors of the 1866 Civil Rights Act did, in fact, not only came up with a better one, but one that can also be used to define a person born with an American birthright, that is a person born subject to no foreign powers

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

Until Congress modifies the law for becoming President, making it clear as day, this will continue to go on. President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to a "natural born citizen" mother. He had next to little influence from his dad, and only slight upbringing from his dad's family. He was raised by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii. That has been told time and time again. Ted Cruz WAS not born on United States soil. He is a foreigner with a visa. I know this is hard for some people to grasp, Hawaii is the United States, Canada is not the United States.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@andybuzz2u I don't think legislation has a role in settling the question. It will either take a Constitutional amendment providing a definition or the Supreme Court clarifying the existing definition in a ruling on a case involving presidential eligibility. I think both of these is unlikely to occur.

Congress has a role when it counts the electoral votes and hears objections. Should Cruz be the president-elect, Congress could declare him unqualified, in which case the vice president elect becomes president.

Correction about Cruz: while foreign-born, he is a US Citizen with a passport, not an alien with a visa. He was a citizen birth through his US citizen mother.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Surly Curmudgen @andybuzz2u Sorry, but wrongly interpreting the statute does not change anything.

1) only one parent needs to be a citizen for Cruz to be natural born example. 

2) only Obama needs to be born in a State for him to be natural born.  

Sorry asserting anything else shows your ignorance of the facts.  It is not up for debate and is settled.  Again, Sorry.

RodPrather
RodPrather

@MikeyPalos @Surly Curmudgen @andybuzz2u 

Or a Territory or Protectorate like Puerto Rico or Guam.  Since these places are considered part of the United States .   Certainly this hasn't happened but it is possible. 


And they certainly be asserting.


Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

@MikeyPalos @Surly Curmudgen @andybuzz2u 

Your incorrect interpretation of the law does not change it. 


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

There is no other definition of "natural born" to be found anywhere.

Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

@andybuzz2u 

Cruz was a citizen at birth as his mother was and is a US citizen. His father was not a US citizen therefore Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

Obama was a US citizen at birth as his mother was a US citizen . His father was not a US citizen therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@andybuzz2u 

" He had next to little influence from his dad" ... um... "Dreams from my Father"? I hear it's a good read if you want to know about Obama's attachment to his dad.

Obama has been steeped in Islam and Marxism since childhood. A huge warning flag was waved in 2006, when he traveled to Kenya (the 'home country') to lend his status as a US Senator to the Presidential campaign of a Marxist thug named Raila Odinga. Mr. Odinga had promised the Islamists in Kenya that he would impose Sharia law if he won, and there was Mr. Obama trying to make that happen. When Odinga lost the election, his followers went on a Christian-killing spree.

You didn't know this because the Left-wing media carefully concealed it, so Obama could have a shot at the Presidency, where he could do even more damage.

Mr. Obama sent our Air Force to bomb a path through Libya to help radical Islamists overthrow that nation and murder its sovereign leader, to impose harsh Islamist rule.

Mr. Obama praised the Communist-assisted overthrow of Egypt that put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge. He glowingly called it "democracy" as they got busy persecuting Christians. He was none to glowing when the People of Egypt had enough and ousted the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Obama again praised "democracy" when a Leftist coup overthrew the government of Honduras. That's what created the crisis that still drives parents to send their children all the way up to the USA to cross the border illegally in droves.

Mr. Obama instructed NASA to shift its budget to "Muslim Outreach" programs instead of space exploration, forcing the American taxpayers to support the Umma and demonstrate their Dhimmitude.

Obama's grandparents were radical Marxists. His Mother was very close to a Communist named Frank Marshall Davis.

Yes, Obama's fondness for his Marxist roots, as well as his Islamist roots, has been demonstrated in his Presidency.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@Russrhs That's nice - but "citizenship" is not what qualifies a person for the Presidency.


Only the condition of Natural Born Citizen qualifies.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@Russrhs 

Yes, the NA1790 made a temporary extension, allowing that people born overseas to US Citizens would be "considered as" natural-born citizens, because they are not.

It was repealed just five years later, so it is null and void. Those people, born overseas to US Citizens, were redefined in the Naturalization Act of 1795 as mere "citizens" by birth, which does not qualify them for the Presidency.


The only remaining definition of Natural Born Citizen is the one the Founders started with when they wrote the Constitution.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

Russrhs
Russrhs

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

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.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT]

Let’s take a look at the numerous attempts congress has made over the years to change the definition of Article II even though any educated American knows that to change the constitution in any shape or form a constitutional amendment is required. -

Russrhs
Russrhs

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become 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. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

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.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT

Russrhs
Russrhs

. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868:

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.

The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.

Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”

As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT]

Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” –

3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:


As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)






Russrhs
Russrhs

Constitutional Convention – “Born a Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen":

When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.

Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President. 

John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.

Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and 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 devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.

Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:

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.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]


Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@Russrhs 

I am gratified to see another person who has done his homework and actually understands this!

Russrhs
Russrhs

there is nothing in our history of the actual laws that would suggest one simply born here on this soil to one parent or zero parents is a natural born citizen. there is nothing in our history of actual laws that would suggest that one born abroad to one or both parents is a natural born citizen.  however, there are many people like yourself who like to interpret the laws and remove or add words to there interpretation to suit there opinion on the matter.  The actual reference used in writing article 2 of the constitution is vettals laws of nations which clearly defines a natural born citizen as one born here to citizen parents.  the naturalization act of 1790 stated basically the same thing, One born here to citizen parents is a NBC. After that no law states anything other than just a citizen, no mention of nbc. The 14th amendment state one born here or in the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen here, makes no mention of natural born citizen. jus citizen.    The whole reason for the nbc clause in the constitution was to eliminate foreign influence within the Presidency the . The framers/founders believed the best way to do this was to make it a requirement to be president that he  be a natural born citizen, born here to citizen parents. They believed the president should have sole allegiance to the USA at birth and this was the best way to ensure that.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The constitution states the president must be a nbc or a citizen at the time of the constitution was adopted .So clearly there is a distinct difference between the two    The first 7 presidents were all born here on this soil. None were natural born citizens despite being born here but were eligible per the constitution just a citizens at the time . Why were they not NBC since they were born here?   Simple, there parents were not citizens.   They put the citizens at the time clause in the constitution because at the time there were no natural born citizens.        It would take two citizens to have a baby and 35 years later we would have the very first NBC.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Is it purely coincidence that every president in our history with the exception of the ones grand fathered in as just citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution and Barack Obama were all born here to citizen parents?   Barack Obama's father was never a US citizen  and I highly doubt Barack was born in Hawaii anyways.            

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@Russrhs 

There was one other President whose Father was not a US Citizen: Chester Arthur

He knew he had a problem. So, he had his friends create a fuss in the media about "where" he was born. Meanwhile he destroyed the family records to ensure they could not be brought into court. All to distract from the fact his Father had not naturalized before he was born. As long as nobody could prove it one way or another, he just kept dragging things out while he played the part of president.

Barack Obama saw the success of that strategy and followed it, with similar success.

Russrhs
Russrhs

I will post the entire comment.     

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.             


RichardTestaccio
RichardTestaccio

What really matters is that this guy is destroying the country With idiots like you backing him.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@RichardTestaccio 

Socialists actually think it's funny that they can herd the "useful idiots" into putting the Socialists into power to pillage and ruin their nations. They laugh out loud at the stupidity of the "Stupid American Voter" who actually supports them.

The Yuri Bezmenov interview (on YouTube) gives one a look at how Socialists view the people dumb enough to support them.

RodPrather
RodPrather

GIVE IT UP, YOU LOSE! You present false information.  It is NOT HEARSAY.. 

RodPrather
RodPrather

On October 31, 2008, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." [58][107] On July 27, 2009, Dr. Fukino issued an additional statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen." [108]

Attempts to prevent Obama from participating in the 2012 Democratic primary election in several states failed.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@RodPrather 

Yes, and that document says that Obama's Father was not a US Citizen. No wonder Obama's team of lawyers have fought all these years to prevent his legal birth document from being submitted as evidence into any case trying to validate his eligibility.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations
 

ksdb
ksdb

@RodPrather You need to pay close attention. The 2008 statement says that a birth certificate was "on record." It does not say that the jpg of the COLB was verified. It doesn't mean anything. Gov. Linda Lingle claimed a year later that this statement said Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital, but you'll see it says no such thing. Such information would have been illegal to present under Hawaiian law UNLESS it was presented under the state's sunshine law, but Lingle did not claim to be making such a statement. It was on its face a lie.

The 2009 statement is a case of willful misdirection. Notice Fukino did NOT say she saw the original birth certificate this time. Her statement says "original vital records." The only legal record that would legally verify a birth in Hawaii is a legal birth certificate. Her change of verbiage means she could not verify Obama's alleged certification of live birth. Remember, there was no long-form birth certificate yet. This statement means that whatever she looked at was NOT a legal birth certificate, which means she was NOT legally verifying a place of birth or anything else for that matter. This was a news release and is thus considered HEARSAY. Second, no vital record specifically states that anyone is a natural-born "American" citizen. We are U.S. citizens in this country. This news release has NO LEGAL VALUE. The question you need to be asking is why they played a misdirection game with this. 

RodPrather
RodPrather

@ksdb @RodPrather You need to pay close attention.  This issue has been thrown out of court every time it's been presented because it was found to be meritless.  A COLB is a legal representation of live birth.  It was certified and presented by the State of Hawaii.  Obama was born in Hawaii. And you?  You've been brainwashed into believing an outright lie..  You don't count anyway.

You also have to understand that time travel is not possible.  Obama did not travel back to 1961 and issue a Birth Notice.  Just because you dislike Obama doesn't mean you can lie about his birth. 

 

ksdb
ksdb

@RodPrather @ksdb The ones thrown out of court were on the basis of legal standing, not on the basis of news release put out by the director of health. No LEGAL evidence ever showed Obama was born in Hawaii. Period.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@RodPrather @ksdb 

No, the issue has been repeatedly thrown out because the plaintiffs were said to lack "standing". That is, they were not personally harmed even if Obama was not eligible for office. Basically, Judges have been dodging the issue.

John McCain was the one person who really had standing to challenge Obama's illegal placement in office. Yet, Obama personally co-sponsored McCain's Resolution of Eligibility in the Senate. The Resolution is full of misleading and irrelevant blather, yet does finally affirm that McCain was born under US Jurisdiction (Panama Canal Zone) to parents who were both US Citizens, therefore he is a Natural Born Citizen.

But, was he born in the Canal Zone? Some claim he was really born in a hospital in Colon, Panama. That would mean Obama helped do McCain a 'special favor' and McCain returned the favor by not taking Obama to court.


Notice that the Senate could not give Obama a Resolution of Eligibility, knowing his Father was a British Subject. Instead, the DNC gave him teams of lawyers to fight off anyone trying to legally establish his eligibility.

Russrhs
Russrhs

@RodPrather @ksdb  Actually, thrown out do to standing , not merit.  birth notices are triggered by the doh in Hawaii even when a relative files a form stating there was a bith. even a foreign birth. Hawaii statue 338-17 states one does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a BC if certain criteria is met. I suggest you watch the video's and presentation of the Maricopa county sheriffs office, Arpaio/ Zullo and see the the mountain of evidence your self.  Ill tell you this. it's overwhelming!!!!  There is a reason for all the following. Obama mother passport records destroyed pre 1965, why? immigration records of all passenger's flying into HNL from foreign countries during Obama birth week, why? all 52 weeks from 1961 are present except his birth week, why?   over 20 anomalies on Obama LFBC that would suggest its a forgery, why?   of all the draft cards issued in the USA (millions) only Obama has a 2 digit year stamp all the rest in the history of the USA have a 4digit year stamp. Why?   Obama has a SSN from the state of Conn that was issued to Harrison bounel. Why?  Obama is the only person in the history of the state of Hawaii to have allegedly filed for ssn in Hawaii to have a number beginning with 042 all other from Hawaii have a 500 series number, why.  He never lived in Conn.   etc..... etc..... etc..... etc..... etc..... the truth is coming out!!!!     

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@Russrhs @RodPrather @ksdb 

It would appear that Obama presenting an obviously 'altered' certification of live birth was a clever chess move.

It ensured that if anyone brought it into a courtroom, Obama's own lawyers could insist it is not legal evidence, since there are questions about it's validity.

Team Obama made a lot of moves to ensure his qualification for office could not be legally resolved. Rather obviously, he knows he has a problem legally being President.


In 2008, the US Government was overthrown by a coup d'etat and the unlawful usurper is busy "fundamentally transforming" it. And the American People just let it happen.

Leave a Comment
  1. RodPrather Speak2Truth DavidFarrar "THE LEFT SNUCK IN OBAMA"  God, you certainly are a conspiracy theorist.  Obama was born in HAWAII..  Nobody "SNUCK HIM IN".  You're comments about Obama's COLB being falsified are borderline humorous.
  2. Speak2Truth DavidFarrar Speak2Truth  He may well be running interference for Barack Obama. He may be an agent of the North American Union, being snuck in there, just as the Left snuck Obama in, saying all kinds of wonderful things while bringing foreign influence into the White House. Remember, few people really understood the extent of Obama's foreign connections to evil folks until long after he was in office. Who he really was, was carefully concealed from the American public. I wish I could trust Ted Cruz. If he were vying for the post of Secretary of State or perhaps Supreme Court Justice, I might not have reason to doubt his integrity. Running for President raises huge red flags and I mean that in the way Socialists like to wave those things around. There is something rotten in Denmark.
  3. Speak2Truth DavidFarrar Speak2Truth RodPrather  It's amazing how the Constitution has been perverted by simply pretending it means something else. ... In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Clearly, "anchor babies" do not qualify to be Citizens under the 14th Amendment any more than Barack Obama and Ted Cruz qualify to be Natural Born Citizens. There is the question of 8 USC 1401, which seems to have changed things a bit, as far as making citizens.
  4. DavidFarrar Speak2Truth DavidFarrar RodPrather Yes, it is a bit tricky. Sorry. Did you know, there is not one word in the entire legislative intent surrounding the creation of the actual wording of the 14th Amendment that was supports the overly broad interpretation our courts have consistently given to the 14th Amendment?  The legislative intent was quite clear; it was simply meant to "constitutionalize" the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and, as I say, its jurisdictional section simply states, no person born subject to a foreign power can be born a US citizen.
  5. DavidFarrar Speak2Truth DavidFarrar Yes, you bring up a very good question. One I have been thinking about too. We know that he knows what he is and what he isn't ...what's his game? Is he running interference for someone, perhaps JEB? Walker? or somebody waiting out in the wings?
  6. Speak2Truth DavidFarrar Speak2Truth RodPrather  I was replying to Rod Prather. This system is a bit tricky, in figuring out to whom exactly a reply is made. You and I both know the definition that the Founders knew. Heck, they had it spelled out in black and white for them. Some people are trying very hard to get it wrong.
  7. DavidFarrar RodPrather Speak2Truth DavidFarrar Yes, you are right, the lowers courts, Ankney v Indiana, have stated that anyone born within the jurisdiction, regardless of their parents' citizenship status is an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen. But such is not the case with Sen Cruz. Here the courts repeatedly observed a person foreign-born of domicilium US citizen parent(s) is a naturalized US citizen at birth.  So when Sen Cruz tells us he is a US citizen at birth, having never been required to go through a naturalization procedure at some later time, that makes him an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen he is being duplicitous, to be kind.
  8. Speak2Truth DavidFarrar  Digital High-five! I'm glad to see fellow Patriots standing up for the Constitution. Like Obama, who campaigned around saying all kinds of nice things about stopping the rise in debt limit, stopping illegal executive orders, bringing transparency to government... Ted Cruz is illegally trying to take office while saying all kinds of nice things to curry favor. Ted Cruz is Barack Obama 2.0 We cannot judge him by his words. His actions prove he does not mean them.
  9. Speak2Truth RodPrather Speak2Truth DavidFarrar  "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson I'm looking at the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It is not changing. Therefore, neither is the Constitution, which all our laws must obey in order to be laws.  "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations
  10. Speak2Truth DrConspiracy Speak2Truth RodPrather RichardTestaccio  The naturalization papers of Arthur's Father were obtained long after he was dead. That was the BIG SECRET that he needed to conceal. Arthur lied about some key dates, while trying to keep attention away from his Father's non-Citizen status when he was born. That was the problem he had to misdirect attention away from, in the same manner Obama is doing. Arthur knew he was ineligible. That's why he lied and concealed, even burned, family documents that might be used in court to resolve the matter. Obama went to the trouble and expense of hiding his legal birth document behind a wall of lawyers. Because... "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations There is no other definition that Founders had.