6.14K
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

1461 comments
David in MA
David in MA

But it does show there is a common understanding that a NBC is the offspring of two citizens born in America or they would not be a move for a change in definition and it also shows the democrats knew Obama is not qualified under the Constitution to be president AND some of the current candidates are also not qualified. Otherwise why would they file such a bill, and not once, but several times.

Russrhs
Russrhs

in 2004 congress tried to pass S2128. this bill was to change the definition of a natural born citizen to one that is simply born here or one born abroad to at least one citizen parent. so obviously this was not the law prior to 2004 and since the bill failed and did not pass it is not the current law.

RussFowler
RussFowler

If it is true what Ted Cruz said that his Mother was a USA citizen then he can be President. Now how about Marco Rubio was born to a Cuban citizen before she became a US citizen. Does that mean Marco Rubio can not be President since he is a Cuban citizen born in America. As Ted Cruz was born in Canada. So which is it, Does the child goes by the way of the Mother nationality?? What a tangle web we weave.

KevinDavidson
KevinDavidson

@ksdb @RussFowler The unsub didn't work.


Of course, you aren't reading Vattel correctly. "Parents" is plural to match "children." In the time of Vattel, mothers had no role in transmitting citizenship. If the father was not know,  citizenship derived from her male relatives. Even Vattel makes clear that is the father. You should try reading before and after your citations, or else you will continue to get things wrong and lose all your arguments.

ksdb
ksdb

@RussFowler No, the Supreme Court said we have interpret Constitutional terms as they were understood by the founders. This means "born in a country of parents [PLURAL] who were its citizens." At the very least, the father has to be a citizen.

"Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212" - Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor/

ksdb
ksdb

@KevinDavidson @ksdb @RussFowler Dr. Fraud, your excuse is pure nonsense. No one forced you to reply or comment here.

And you're wrong on whether parents is plural or not. Wong Kim Ark cited Minor using the plural "parents' for a singular child:

"The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States"

If both parents are not citizens of the same country, then doubts have to be resolved through international law. This is bloody common sense. I have yet to lose any argument on this. 

David in MA
David in MA

People smarter than I have already come to the same conclusion of eligibility to be president of the United States of America.

Then why has it been violated and why is the possibility present for it to be again?

Most Americans know the answer but unfortunately the low information voters may again carry the day and if they do, America will cease to exist as GOD intended for Her to. Satan will win, Baphomet will prevail in the form of Obama.


There are several candidates who are clearly not eligible to be president and a couple who are questionable, will the Constitution prevail or will America die.

RussFowler
RussFowler

All the idiots that voted for Obama in 2008 were so happy to have a Black as a President and did not care where he was born. Now we have a bunch that wants a woman as a President not caring what she has done. The bigger the crime, the better you have a chance to be President.

We should stop all Washington DC politicians from being President. They make laws and then try to be President to correct the laws they made.

RussFowler
RussFowler

Natural Born American citizen are born to two American citizens. I was there when it was written. Stop changing the meaning of words. If the founding fathers did not say that, then it would be anyone can be president. So here comes two Iran parents to visit the USA and then the wife has a child born in America. Is the child legal to be President????  The Answer is NO.

TheDS1
TheDS1

@RussFowler  I was not there, but the "International Law" definition at the time of the penning of the Constitution should be what is followed.  It stated - " a natural born citizen - one who was born to parents who both were citizens of the country and on the soil or possession of the country."


David in MA
David in MA

Neither is Rubio and perhaps Santorum, Romney & Bush, I say Bush because on an official document he listed himself as Hispanic, so his ancestry has to be checked and if it is found he is not qualified, then his brother & father may not have been either.

RussFowler
RussFowler

@David in MA @davidfarrar1 As long as Rick Santorum both parents were US citizens at the time Rick was born, he is a NBC. Marco Rubio Parents were still Cuban citizen at the time Marco was born. So he is not a NBC. Only a US citizen He falls into the class of Anchor Baby.

How many Anchor Babies are now living in the USA??? If one Anchor Baby can be President because he is good American, then all Anchor Babies could be President.

How many babies were born to one American citizens in another country. Are all of them legal to be President??

In 2008 and 2012 there were more voters that did not follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. than the ones that did obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What I am seeing and hearing is that anyone can be President no matter where they were born. Which the Founder did not want. Laws of Nation.

KevinDavidson
KevinDavidson

@RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 The idea that what you call an "anchor baby" could not be president is something that was unheard of until late 2008 when the Obama haters invented it so that could deny that a black man was president.


There is noting whatever in the writings of the founders, nor int he debates in the Federal Convention that wrote the Constitution that supports what you claim the Founders did not want.


The "Laws of Nation" (sic) reflects a continental European notion of citizenship, foreign to our founders.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@KevinDavidson @RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 

Actually, "Law of Nations" was heavily used by our Founders when writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It reflects perfectly their understanding of Citizenship as well as Natural Born Citizen status.

For example, let's look at Natural Born Citizen status:

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

The historical evidence demonstrates that is exactly what the Founders meant by the term, especially the bit about Citizen parents.

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776." - David Ramsay, 1789, Dissertation on the nature of citizenship


"If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." - "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905))


We have ample evidence that the Founders relied on Law of Nations, which was used rather globally, since before the United States was even created.


"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress..." - Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

Russrhs
Russrhs

According to obama himself he came from an interracial marriage, mother a Caucasian women from Kansas and a father a black man from kenya. maybe you are not aware of this. So he is not only black . Anchor babies are citizens covered under the 14th amendment. even though the 14th amendment was not intended for this purpose . citizen is NOT the same as natural born citizen. the potus must have sole allegiance to the USA at birth . the whole reason for the nbc clause in the constitution was to eliminate foreign influence within the presidency. the reference used in writing article 2 was vettals law of nations. The framers/ founders believed the best way to achieve this was through a natural born citizen clause. according to the reference used a natural born citizen is one born here to citizen parents. the scotus has backed this up in several rulings throughout our history. those cases have been posted on this thread Manu times. perhaps you should read them and see how and why the scotus disagrees with you. Also, the constitution says the potus must be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution so clearly there is a distinct difference between natural born citizen and citizen. The first 7 potus were all born here but NONE were natural born citizens but eligible as just citizens. why were they not natural born since they were all born here? Simple. there parents were not citizens at the time of there births here. some people believe that to be a nbc you just have to be born here with no regard to the status of the citizenship of your parents. this is false. some believe you can be born anywhere as long as at least one of your parents was a citizen of the USA and that makes you a nbc, this is false as well. you will not find any law on our books past or present that reflects that. you will not find any ruling by the scotus that reflects that. in 2004 a bill was submitted. bill S 2128 to change the definition of a natural born citizen to anyone born here or anyone born abroad to at least one citizen parent . This bill failed and didn't pass. so you can slice it and dice it and spin it however you want. but the facts, the scotus, the constitution, the reference in writing the constitution, and failed bills all prove you wrong. a natural born citizen is one born here to citizen parents. one other thing. every potus with the exception of those in the begenning who were grand fathered in a just citizens and obama were all born here to citizen parents. the grand father clause ran out Sept 1787.

David in MA
David in MA

@Russrhs  you don't know what your talking about.

AND there is no "grandfather clause".

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs Since the counting of blacks as citizens, if you are born here you are a NBC, now get on with your life.  It is inarguable and indisputable as it has been reality and precedence since those days long ago.  SORRY. none of it has ever been challenged to SCOTUS and until then a moot point.  Again, you need to get on with your life. 

ksdb
ksdb

@Russrhs Russ, your presumptions are false in several ways. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark precluded so-called "anchor babies" from being citizens by requiring the parents to be legal resident aliens. 

" The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."


"Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

You have to be a resident alien who is PERMITTED to live in the U.S. in order for your children to be citizens by birth under the 14th amendment. That leaves out children of illegal aliens. It's why, for example, Obama was not even a 14th amendment citizen. His parents did not have permanent residence in the U.S.


The part about the first seven POTUSes not being natural-born citizens is wrong too. The Supreme Court acknowledged natural-born citizenship for those born in the colonies to parents who adhered to U.S. allegiance in Shanks v. Dupont:

"It is the doctrine of the American Court, that the issue of the revolutionary war settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on the 4th of July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the state of South Carolina, as a natural born citizen to a community ..."

The first seven presidents fit this same criteria.

 



MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@ksdb @Russrhs Sorry, but Wong Ark is not applicable here,  its been covered here a month or better now here on this thread.  Its settled, sorry so get on with your life. 

RussFowler
RussFowler

@Russrhs  You are so correct. What has me concern is that the voters of 2008 and 2012 did wrong voting for Obama by not knowing what the Constitution stood for. Now we got a bunch that don't care what the Constitution stand for. Two wrong's in 2008 and 2012 don't make it right to vote wrong again in 2016. They may not know it, but they may just send the Constitution down the drain and it will be every person on his own. Just because a lot of people from another country love's America with all their heart does not give them the right to be President. We welcome them to our way of life and then one day their off springs could be President when the rules are satisfy by birth.

ksdb
ksdb

@MikeyPalos @ksdb @Russrhs The only way Wong Kim Ark would not apply is if the Constitution has been amended again on citizenship. The current statutes on citizenship  for birth in the country use the same criteria as the 14th amendent - subject to the jurisdction.

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;"

ksdb
ksdb

@KevinDavidson @RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 Dr. Fraud, you said on May 2: "Great idea. I'm unsubbing too." 


And second,the so-called "European notion" of citizenship was not "foreign" to our founders.They used the Law of Nations to help write the Constitution.

KevinDavidson
KevinDavidson

@ksdb @KevinDavidson @RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 I unsubbed twice, and it didn't work.

It is true that the Law of Nations, among many other sources, was used to help write the Constitution, but it was used when other sources were insufficient. The notion of citizenship was well established in the states according to colonial practices which were based on English Common Law.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the new Americans threw all their notions of citizenship by place of birth away in favor of a continental European standard, and patently absurd to suggest that they would do without debate or without leaving a trace of it in their writings.

You can flap your gums forever, but reasonable people rely on the facts and your argument is a proven loser (11 court decisions against it).

davidfarrar1
davidfarrar1

@David in MA


Santorum's father was made a US citizen by the derivative process when his father became a naturalized US citizen, and brought Rick's father over to the US at the age of seven.. So Rick Santorum is an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen. And while JEB is, unquestionably, an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, none of his offspring are, as all were born while JEB's wife was a Mexican national, and before being a naturalized US citizen, making all of his offspring Mexican nationals as well at birth.

ksdb
ksdb

@KevinDavidson @ksdb @RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 Dr. Fraud, your excuse about not subbing is nonsense. You can admit you never intended to stop posting here.

And you're wrong about English common law. The colonists could NOT become citizens if they strictly followed English common law. England required perpetual allegiance to the crown. The Supreme Court cited S. 212 of Vattel's law of nations to determine citizenship in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor. And sorry, but my argument has NEVER lost. 


"It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219"




ksdb
ksdb

@MikeyPalos @ksdb @KevinDavidson @RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 The SCOTUS has ruled on natural-born citizen in Minor v. Happersett:


It made a negative declaration: "The Constitution [14th amendment] does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

It made a positive declaration: "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"

And it was affirmed more nearly 40 years later that it was precedent on presidential eligibility:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; "


What do you have that outweighs the Supreme Court on this issue??

KevinDavidson
KevinDavidson

@ksdb @KevinDavidson @RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 How can you say your argument has never lost? Where has it ever been judged? Do you think that people realizing you are incorrigible and giving up trying to make you see reason is a "win" on your part. By that standard, every lunatic in the assylum is right. 


Birthers exhibit that flaw in thinking that makes them believe an argument is valid because they agree with its conclusions, and so you like the rest of your tribe THINK you have a valid argument but in fact your Inglis theory  is a crock and here's why:


You included just enough of the text to make it look like something it is not. Here's the larger quote:


The question then arises as to what was the operation of the treaty upon his son, the demandant, who was then an infant of tender years and incapable of any election on his own part. It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219, and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject. The argument itself assumes that the demandant now acts officially in that character, and that ever since his arrival of age, he has adhered to his British allegiance."


The special consideration here is that the demandant was born while New York was under British Occupation, so that the jus soli rule doesn't apply.


This case is about the operation of the Treaty under which we sorted out British and American persons after the Revolution. We see that in fact the Supreme Court cited not only Vattel who was referenced but the statute and common law of England. The common law of England says that anyone born in England of alien parents is a natural born subject (which Vattel himself admits in Section 216). That is, the common law of England is in direct contradiction to the conclusions you arrive at, and so you're disproven by your own source.


The Supreme Court noted: "3. That if the demandant was born after 15 September, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, and while his parents were there residing under the protection of and adhering to the British Crown as subjects, de facto he was born a British subject, even though his parents had previously become citizens of the State of New York."


So all you get from your case is the inarguable conclusions that a person born under British sovereignty to two British parents is indeed British. Duh. 

But James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution said:


"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."


So you lost your argument badly. You'll never admit it because you're incapable of it. That's not my problem. Now I'll TRY to unsubscribe again.

KevinDavidson
KevinDavidson

@David in MA @ksdb @KevinDavidson @RussFowler @davidfarrar1 No that is exactly wrong. One of the causes of the Revolutionary War was that England withheld certain rights to the colonists that were part of the common law. As the eminent Justice Story wrote:


"§  79.    And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies.  The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation.  The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law."


The American Continental Congress passed this resolution:


"Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law."


We were pleased to let British Loyalists go, but we kept the law.

Russrhs
Russrhs

mikey, I think you should stick with selling tennis shoes. you know zero about current and past law.

Russrhs
Russrhs

Wong Kim ark. was declared a citizen by the scotus because he was born here. citizen is not nbc.

Russrhs
Russrhs

right. have you ever read the constitution. you have to be a nbc or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution. the citizen at the time ran out Sept 1787. those that were only citizens prior to that date were eligible. that's a gf clause. they had to write it that way because there was not any natural born citizens that were eligible at that time. if u recall one of the requirements is you have to be 35 years old. the USA was just formed . takes some time for one born here to citizen parents to become 35. natural born citizen is one born here to citizen parents every president in our history with the exception of the ones in the begenning who were citizens only , even though they were born here and obama were all born here to citizen parents. obama father was never a US citizen and his birthplace has not been determined

Russrhs
Russrhs

sorry but there is no law on our books past or present that states on born here is a nbc, onky citizen. read the 24th amendment DA

Russrhs
Russrhs

sorry but I'll have to disagree with u on that per information at the library of Congress on all the president's. specifically the first 7 which clearly states they were all citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution . those links have been posted on this thread several times

ksdb
ksdb

@KevinDavidson @David in MA @ksdb @RussFowler @davidfarrar1 Dr. Fraud, you do understand your quote from Justice Story undermines your point when it taks about a principle of common law based on birthright and inheritance. When Story determined such a case of birthright, he said citizenship follows the status of the father an did not apply a jus-soli-only requirement in the case:


"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."

ksdb
ksdb

@KevinDavidson @ksdb @RussFowler @David in MA @davidfarrar1 I can say my argument hasn't lost because it's true. I've been up against a Harvard-educated lawyer who couldn't defeat the argument. 

As for your misreading of Inglis, you're relying on a selective citation of Inglis. It said:

"Whether, in case he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, he would be under the like disability [of not being able to inherit because he was a British subject]"

The above time period was not during a time of British occupation. That occupation happened on Sept. 15 and afterward. So, during this time when the U.S. was independent, a child born in the country was NOT found to be a U.S. citizen under English common law. Why not? Because the "children generally acquire the national character of their parents" as was said by Vattel and quoted by the majority opinion.

And you put your foot in your mouth when you cited Madison and lopped off the rest of the quote: 

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison was arguing that the BIRTHRIGHT from the ancestors was part of what made Smith a citizen. He was arguing against someone who used YOUR argument of jus soli that Smith would be a natural-born subject because of the English common law.  

You better unsubscribe before you embarrass yourself any further at the lack of understanding you have for this issue.  

Leave a Comment
  1. TheDS1 RussFowler  I was not there, but the "International Law" definition at the time of the penning of the Constitution should be what is followed.  It stated - " a natural born citizen - one who was born to parents who both were citizens of the country and on the soil or possession of the country."
  2. ksdb Dave B. ksdb KevinDavidson RussFowler Then I'm counting this one as an easy victory. You're not presenting any substance, just acting like a baby with sore fingers on its foot.
  3. Dave B. ksdb Dave B. KevinDavidson RussFowler You can count your imaginary victories any way you want.
  4. ksdb Dave B. ksdb KevinDavidson RussFowler Or you can count 'em honestly on the feet of a caterpillar instead of repetitively counting on your two toes.
  5. Dave B. ksdb Dave B. KevinDavidson RussFowler Yeah, I can count them on the fingers of one foot.
  6. ksdb Dave B. ksdb KevinDavidson RussFowler  Dave, it's okay to admit I'm right. You should know as well as anybody as many times as I've debunked your arguments.
  7. ksdb KevinDavidson ksdb RussFowler David in MA davidfarrar1 I can say my argument hasn't lost because it's true. I've been up against a Harvard-educated lawyer who couldn't defeat the argument.  As for your misreading of Inglis, you're relying on a selective citation of Inglis. It said: "Whether, in case he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, he would be under the like disability [of not being able to inherit because he was a British subject]" The above time period was not during a time of British occupation. That occupation happened on Sept. 15 and afterward. So, during this time when the U.S. was independent, a child born in the country was NOT found to be a U.S. citizen under English common law. Why not? Because the "children generally acquire the national character of their parents" as was said by Vattel and quoted by the majority opinion. And you put your foot in your mouth when you cited Madison and lop off the rest of the quote:  "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony." Madison was arguing that the BIRTHRIGHT from the ancestors was part of what made Smith a citizen. He was arguing against someone who used YOUR argument of jus soli that Smith would be a natural-born subject because of the English common law.   You better unsubscribe before you embarrass yourself any further at the lack of understanding you have for this issue.
  8. Dave B. ksdb KevinDavidson RussFowler   And you never will, as long as you're the one deciding who wins.
  9. ksdb MikeyPalos ksdb KevinDavidson RussFowler David in MA davidfarrar1 The SCOTUS did rule on how natural-born citizen is defined. All you have a circular-logic argument that relies on the ability of modern courts to be pass decisions that are ignorant of what the higher court has said or to simply defy the higher court outright.
  10. ksdb KevinDavidson David in MA ksdb RussFowler davidfarrar1 Dr. Fraud, you do understand your quote from Justice Story undermines your point when it taks about a principle of common law based on birthright and inheritance. When Story determined such a case of birthright, he said citizenship follows the status of the father an did not apply a jus-soli-only requirement in the case: "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."