The Second amendment

[Seth]

Aliens become citizens by being "naturalized," and then they are citizens, but they are not Aliens become citizens by being "naturalized," and then they are citizens, but they are not "natural born" citizens and cannot hold the office of President of the United States citizens

And that is exactly why the US Constitution uses the the expression "natural born" rather than "naturalised". The former is a US citizen by birth right, the latter by governmet approval.

You have yet to furnish evidence that if a person is born when one of the parents is not a US citizen at the time, that person is not legally entitled to be classed as a natural born citizen, and I doubt you could do that even if you tried.

Oh, I could, but it's been a well-known fact since the 17th century at least, so I'm not interested in educating you when you can go to Wikipedia and look it up yourself.

If you don't believe me, feel free to post YOUR citations proving that what you opine is the truth. Good luck with that.

[Seth]

Have to agree with Seth: Cruz is not eligible. Other than that, disagree. The children (born on US soil) of immigrants residing in US permanently were not to be denied rights including presidency. The parents, obviously, were.

Wrong.

[Hermit]

it's been a well-known fact since the 17th century at least, so I'm not interested in educating you when you can go to Wikipedia and look it up yourself.

That's your bald assertion. The Wikipedia contains an article on the natural-born-citizen clause, but does not mention anything about a requirement that both parents be citizens, in order to be president. In fact, the article specificall states:

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."

So much for "a well known fact."

[Tero]

I've quoted Wikipedia before. It's just some socialist propaganda, to Seth. Other than the text of the US Constitution.

[JimC]

I've quoted Wikipedia before. It's just some socialist propaganda, to Seth. Other than the text of the US Constitution.

99% of everything written is socialist propaganda to Seth...

[Seth]

it's been a well-known fact since the 17th century at least, so I'm not interested in educating you when you can go to Wikipedia and look it up yourself.

That's your bald assertion. The Wikipedia contains an article on the natural-born-citizen clause, but does not mention anything about a requirement that both parents be citizens, in order to be president. In fact, the article specificall states:

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."

So much for "a well known fact."

See how easy that was? Now, the only problem you have is the "consensus of early 21st century constitutional and legal scholarship." You see, what the 21st century Progressives and their ilk agree upon is not relevant to what the original intent of the Framers was when the clause was written, it's nothing more than political revisionism.

The only opinions of importance are those of the Framers and their contemporaries, who were quite explicit in restricting the presidency to "natural born citizens" precisely to prevent foreign intrigues. And if you read the paper, you discover that the term "natural born citizen" always, in every context, from the 14th century until the founding of the United States, referred to foreign-born children whose parents were both subjects of the Crown of England. A foreign mother or father automatically made the child and "alien" who could be naturalized only by a private bill in Parliament.

And that's what the Framers understood the term to mean, which is precisely why they used it as a bar against people precisely like Barack Obama being President.

As one constitutional scholar puts it,

Almost nothing is known about why the Clause was added to the
Constitution because no recorded debate on the subject exists. The first draft
of the Constitution to include qualifications for the presidency was reported on
August 22, 1787.77 This draft provided that “he shall be of the age of thirty
five years, and a Citizen of the United States, and shall have been an Inhabitant
thereof for Twenty one years.”78 Earlier, on July 25 of that year, John Jay sent
the following letter to George Washington,79 who was serving as the president
of the Constitutional Convention at the time:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the [A]merican army shall
not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.80
On September 2, Washington acknowledged receipt of Jay’s missive and
thanked him “for the hints contained in [his] letter.”81 Two days later, on
September 4, a Committee of Eleven82 reported the following provision to the
Convention:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the U.S. at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the
office of President: nor shall any Person be elected to that office,
who shall be under the age of 35 years, and who has not been in the
whole, at least 14 years a resident within the U.S.83
On September 7, the Convention approved these requirements without
objection,84 and only stylistic changes were made thereafter.85
One of the most important early American jurists, Joseph Story,86 approved
of the provision. In his treatise on the Constitution, he praised the Framers’
decision to limit the presidency to “natural born citizen.”87 He noted that
the Clause’s provision that allowed individuals to be naturalized before the
Constitution’s adoption to become President88 represented “an exception from
the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence
from their executive councils and duties.”89 Story additionally claimed that
“the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will
scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for
ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”90

[Seth]

I've quoted Wikipedia before. It's just some socialist propaganda, to Seth. Other than the text of the US Constitution.

99% of everything written is socialist propaganda to Seth...

Well, 99% of everything written here is...

[NineBerry]

The Wikipedia article has several examples of people of that time using the term "natural born citizen" as meaning citizen by birth. (independent of the citizenship of the parents)

[Seth]

The Wikipedia article has several examples of people of that time using the term "natural born citizen" as meaning citizen by birth. (independent of the citizenship of the parents)

Which people, and when?

Remember, reference to Wikipedia is a place to start only. Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source with respect to anything.

[Tero]

Holy Cow! Ted Cruz is maybe allowed to be a candidate. Despite the fuzzyness of his dual US Canadian status, the mother appears to be a US citizen. There are some minimal conditions, but the FRAMERS clearly did not want to exclude children of US citizens. There is no mention of parents, this is all assumed stuff. But since paternity could not be proven in 1800, merely a mother should be proof enough.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on- ... n-citizen/

[Seth]

Holy Cow! Ted Cruz is maybe allowed to be a candidate. Despite the fuzzyness of his dual US Canadian status, the mother appears to be a US citizen. There are some minimal conditions, but the FRAMERS clearly did not want to exclude children of US citizens. There is no mention of parents, this is all assumed stuff. But since paternity could not be proven in 1800, merely a mother should be proof enough.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on- ... n-citizen/

Of course they didn't want to exclude the children of US citizens from citizenship, but they did intend to exclude the children of non-US citizens from the office of President, and one non-US citizen parent is sufficient to bar the child from holding that office for the reasons cited by the Framers themselves, as cited.

What you think "should" be and what actually is are two different things. And BECAUSE paternity tests were not available in the late 1700s, the danger of a foreign-born child (born outside the US) could be the product of an "illicit" sexual relationship rather than a valid marriage, England itself denied citizenship to such children as a matter of course and law. Any child of a marriage between an English citizen and a non-English citizen was automatically denied citizenship, period. Only children of two English citizens born outside of English territory, and a sub-set of even that group, were even allowed to apply for naturalization through a private bill in Parliament.

And that concept was imported into US law as part of the Common Law of the United States, and that is why the specific bar against a child of an American citizen and a foreigner (alien) is not permitted to hold the office of President.

Oh, and the Harvard Law Review, like all of Harvard, is a hard-left Progressive organization that is perfectly willing to lie, falsify and distort the truth in order to forward it's Marxist/Progressive ideology.

For example: "These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects..."

Note that it is implicit that the children be born to "subjects" of the British Empire...that means BOTH OF THE PARENTS had to be British subjects, not just one of them.

And again, from the same source: "The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens..."

Note the plural of "citizen." Not "one citizen and an alien", not "a citizen", but "citizens," which means BOTH PARENTS must be citizens for the child to be a "natural born citizen" if born outside the United States. If born inside the United States to parents who are both US citizens, then again the child is a "natural born citizen." But not if one of the parents is not a US citizen.

And again: "That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents (plural).

And this is ludicrously interesting: "The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”

A resolution of Congress does not and cannot change the Constitution or how it is to be read. It's meaningless dicta with no legal force and effect, despite what the Harvard Law Review might think. The ONLY way such things get changed are by Constitutional Amendment.

The authors are flatly and mendaciously wrong. But that's to be expected of them because if they were to do what they want to do, which is disqualify as many Republicans as possible from the field, they would be admitting that Barack Obama is illegitimately serving as President and should therefore be impeached and removed from office and all his acts and order struck from the public record.

[Tero]

Quote this "parents" line, alone. Toomuch stuff in it.

[Seth]

Here's the biggest and most asinine failure in the Harvard Law Review article:

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

The mendacious twisting of fact here is the subtle shift from "citizen parents" (plural) to "citizen parent" (singular) which is then deliberately confused with the two classes of citizens involved in the question of who is qualified to be President, "citizens" and "natural born citizens."

While it is true that the Naturalization Act allowed children of a single US citizen parent (a woman) and an alien father who had "at least been a resident in the United States at some point" to be "citizens" without the need for naturalization (thus Barack Obama would be a "citizen" even if born in Kenya to a US citizen mother...presuming she had not renounced her citizenship, which is yet another grey area), such a child would NOT be a "natural born citizen" eligible to hold the office of President. And that's Barack Obama in a nutshell. The devious conflation of "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen" is obviously intended to cause the reader to draw a (fallacious) inference that "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen" are the same thing. They aren't. Not in the least, as the entire Naturalization Act of 1790 proves. The whole purpose of the Naturalization Act of 1790 was not to turn anyone born to one citizen parent into a "natural born citizen" no matter the fealty of the other parent to another sovereign and no matter where the child was born, it was quite specific that the alien father must have at some point resided in the US, and that for the purposes of not denying the child citizenship rights, the mother's US citizenship would be adequate to prevent the child from having to be naturalized as a citizen if, and only if the father had been a resident in the US. If the father was never a resident, then the child would NOT be a citizen at birth and would need to be naturalized to become a citizen.

This cannot be read to mean that "citizen at birth" (born of at least one US citizen) and "natural born citizen" (born of two US citizen parents) are the same thing, which is obviously the lie that the authors intend to perpetrate in this document.

Then, the authors go on to suggest that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was actually an amendment to the Constitution which changed the meaning of "natural born citizen" from a person with two US-citizen parents to that of a person with ONLY A MOTHER who was a US citizen and that since none of today's candidates were born before 1790, the constitutional bar to non-natural born citizens somehow vanished from the Constitution.

That's as ridiculous as it gets insofar as credible legal reasoning is concerned. These two hacks clearly have dishonest motives for publishing their asinine and completely non-legal opinions, and that motive is to protect the current usurper, Barack H. Obama, who illegally and illegitimately holds the office of President of the United States.

[Tero]

Since the King no longer has any power, what use is any of this wording to us today? There is no Somali prince converting us to Islam.

It's about as antiquated as the militias of the 2nd. We pay our national guardcto bear those arms.

[Hermit]

it's been a well-known fact since the 17th century at least, so I'm not interested in educating you when you can go to Wikipedia and look it up yourself.

That's your bald assertion. The Wikipedia contains an article on the natural-born-citizen clause, but does not mention anything about a requirement that both parents be citizens, in order to be president. In fact, the article specificall states:

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."

So much for "a well known fact."

See how easy that was? Now, the only problem you have is the "consensus of early 21st century constitutional and legal scholarship." You see, what the 21st century Progressives and their ilk agree upon is not relevant to what the original intent of the Framers was when the clause was written, it's nothing more than political revisionism.

And then you finally provide your first link to what someone wrote on the subject. What is it? Oh look. It's a 21st century opinion. Well done, Seth. That is the very thing you just said to be irrelevant.

Now to what you call "the prime authority", Vattel's Law of Nations. That book is almost 1000 pages long. One sentence in it says "it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." If that is your prime authority, you stand on extremely flimsy ground in regard to it being "a well-known fact since the 17th century at least", and especially so since Vattel also writes that the homeless are not entitled to citizenship. Do you think that is something the authors of your constitution also intended the natural born citizen clause to mean, but left unsaid because "it's been a well-known fact since the 17th century at least"? Or are you just picking and choosing from the books of a Swiss philosopher whatever suits your interpretation of the clause and reject what does not?

Moreover, times do change, Seth, and sometimes for the good. Before your civil war there were four million slaves who had no citizenship rights whatsoever. They were considered property to be owned, bought and sold exactly like cattle or land. Until less than a century ago half the adult population was not a part of "we, the people" as far as even sometheng as basic as voting rights are concerned either. Interpretations of what your constitution "really means" change all the time, yet here you are pretending that they never do while asserting a meaning that was never expressed in the first place.