Exactly. I was simply saying that having seen the issue debated on cnn, there might be an issue the courts need to weigh in on.m as I stated, I have not read the exact verbiage, so I hold no firm stance. But from the very basic information of hearing the term "natural born citizen" without more knowledge, I can see interpretation being an issue. If the constitution spells it out, fine, but without knowing more someone not born in America would seem to go against the concept of "natural born". But I lay no claim to being right, a little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous.
Well, there isn't really much point in debating if Santa Claus exists, even if some people are foolish enough to believe it.
Harvard Law Review good enough? http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
I did not state what the term means. I have seen no debate what so ever about the what the Law of Nation says about the term Natural Born. This is the only place I know of where it is defined contemporary with the of creation of the Constitution. I do see people speculate about what iit should mean. You seem to be in that category. Why would a person speculate on what a term means rather than read the definition? Why take sides in a debate over what it means before you have read what it means? Why look to the court to tell you what it means before you disagree with the known definition? Do you know of a reason why the term was used to specify the requirement for the office of President? No other office or position has this requirement, so it must be important to understand the meaning of the term. Don't you agree?
I think that review explains the meaning well enough and the first immigration law definitely followed on with the theme. Even though the 14th amendment changed the original immigration law, it made no attempt to change the Natural Born definition. This statement from the review is the heart of the explanation of Natural born in the Law of Nations. "That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . ." The reason for the requirement of Natural Born for President, is to prevent wealthy foreigners from fathering off spring born in this country from becoming President where these off spring would be citizens of the nation of their father by right of decent. Ted Cruz's birth in Canada is not a problem any more than it was for John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal zone as congress has already ruled. Cruz's father was a resident of the US before his birth and most of the time since although not a citizen, but I think the 1790 immigration law covers that issue with Cruz's father being a resident long enough. But we do have one problem currently on hand, can anyone think of a President who's father was never a resident of the US? A President that was born in the US, but was also born a citizen of another nation by right of decent? This is an exact example of what the term Natural Born was intended to prevent.
Here is a copy and paste of the section of the 1759 Book, The law of Nations. Sometime referred to as Natural Law. § 212. Of the citizens and natives. “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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, 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.”
They cannot both be correct, for they are arguing different points of view. Denny's is that a natural born citizen is any citizen that did not require naturalization. MarAzul's is that a natural born citizen is as defined in a book written before the US constitution. According to MarAzul, Obama is not a natural born citizen. According to Denny, Obama is. barfo
Thanks barfo, then I go with the Harvard law review (Denny). I have a tough time interpreting MarAzul at times. Perhaps the courts could help me with that.
The concept of natural born citizen and numerous of our other laws are based on English common law that predates the constitution by centuries. Except in Louisiana, where their laws are based upon French common law. So we can both be right. And barfo can be wrong
Ha! Dang! I can't think of anything I said that is all that difficult to understand. I even extracted the information from the book for you.
Yeah, it's great, if we were living in the 1780's. We aren't. Or at least, most of us aren't. Essentially every court decision since then disagrees with your view of natural born citizen (amusingly, the single one that agrees with you is Dred Scott). barfo
Really? Please give us a link to one decision. I can't not think of one time the question of Natural Born has been before the court. I look forward to being brought up to date. I do recall Congress ruling on John McCain being Natural Born, but never the court on anyone.
Here you go. Read the section that begins on page 44 entitled "Assertion of Two Citizen-Parent Requirement".
More importantly, a requirement to be "natural born" most likely would exclude all Americans born by Cesarean section procedure. I seriously doubt we are in danger of Ted Cruz ever becoming President of the United States, regardless of his birthplace.
Page 44 of what? Oh, I see. Page 44 hardly refers to a ruling by the court on anything to do with Natural Born. Yes it refers to cases ruling on Citizenship which you seem to think is the same. Well consider this, the Constitution calls for a Natural Born Citizen not a Citizen and the Court has once ruled that there are no superfluous word in the Constitution. So trying to make Citizen and Natural Born Citizen the same thing will hardly work. The paper you referenced is by an attorney, it is not a court decision. I love this line, "unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars". He must mean all except the Harvard Law review Denny posted.
