CADD Graphics
Carolina Readiness Supply
Websites
NC Renegade on Twitter
NC Renegade on Gab
NC Renegade on Truth Social
Wes Rhinier on Gab
12 Round Blog
Barnhardt
Cold Fury
DanMorgan76
Defensive Training Group
The Deth Guild
The Feral Irishman
First in Freedom Daily
Forloveofgodandcountry's Blog
Free North Carolina
Knuckledraggin My Life Away
Liberty's Torch
90 Miles From Tyranny
Professor Preponomics
Publius-Huldah's Blog
Straight Line Logic
The Tactical Hermit
War on Guns
Western Rifle Shooters Association
Categories
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Magrit on Israel Buckles as Iran War Shifts to New Drag-Out Phase
- Latigo Morgan on Bad Grok
- Big Jymn on Israel Buckles as Iran War Shifts to New Drag-Out Phase
- AJR973 on Why I support Iran over Israel.
- Randolph Scott on USAID
Archives
Meta
CADD Graphics
Carolina Readiness Supply
Your explanation on the difference between Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen, could not be any clearer if you tried. I have explained this to people in much the same way, yet the failure of people to comprehend is astounding. I don’t know if their failure to understand is for real or if they just don’t want to understand.
She’s very clear, but she’s also very wrong.
It has always been understood that anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. That’s what the term means, and what it has always meant. That’s been settled since 1790, when the first Congress enacted a statute declaring that children born overseas of U.S.parents are natural born U.S. citizens.
That statute was signed into law by President Washington.
As a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett affirmed there are exactly two classes of citizens: “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” The former are natural-born, the latter are naturalized. There’s no halfway-between class of citizens, who are citizens from birth but not natural-born.
There’s no evidence at all, in the language or history of the U.S. Constitution, to suggest that the Framers envisioned a third class of citizens, who were citizens from birth but not to be considered “natural born.” Only crackpots like Mario Apuzzo claim such a thing, and they have no evidence to support it.
If the First Congress had meant to define some other sort of citizen, they certainly would not have used the exact term used in the Constitution: natural born. They would not have said, “shall be considered as natural born citizens” if what they’d really meant was “shall be considered as citizens, but not natural born.” There’s no suggestion in any known historical or legal document that any of the Framers thought there could be a third sort of citizen, who was neither a natural born citizen nor a naturalized citizen.
At no time has any Congress ever written any statute suggesting that someone who is born a U.S. citizen might not be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Here are four references:
1. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf (if interested in Ted Cruz, see Sec. 301(a)(7) on p.236, which is p.74 as Acrobat Reader numbers the pages in that file).
2. http://tinyurl.com/NatBornHarv
3. http://tinyurl.com/natz-chart-a
4. http://tinyurl.com/natz-chart-b
Reference #1 is the statute which specifically applies to Ted Cruz’s circumstance, though it’s the current version, rather than the 1970 version.
Reference #3 is a chart which takes into account how the law has changed over the years. (What matters is what the law was when a person was born.)
Reference #2 is a Harvard Law review article about the meaning of the term “natural born.” It was written by two former Solicitors General of the United States, one Republican and one Democrat.
Reference #4 doesn’t apply to any of the current candidates, but might have applied to President Obama if he’d been born overseas, and if his parents’ brief, illegal, bigamous marriage had been declared invalid.
Sir, You are the one who is clearly wrong. As far as the Harvard Law Review goes, they Liberal controlled and they gave their interpretation to cover the Fact that Obama is NOT a constitutionally legal president. As to your comment; “At no time has any Congress ever written any statute suggesting that someone who is born a U.S. citizen might not be a natural born citizen of the United States. Congress, can ONLY make laws concerning “Citizenship”, NOT concerning “Natural Born Citizenship” which falls under Natural Law. You have also stated: “It has always been understood that anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.” That is NOT true, I am 71 years old and as far back as I can remember, It was always understood that a “Natural Born Citizen” are those born to TWO U.S. citizen parents. The SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) stated : “”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.”
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the Court said: “”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. . . .”
And in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814), they state: “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.”
So in effect, you are saying an “anchor baby”, which is given citizenship through a flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment, would be eligible to hold the office of President?
It sure seems that there should be some third option (citizen vs natural born citizen vs naturalized citizen).
I also think a key point is “of US parents”, note the plural.
@david burton
Lets do what Jefferson said an go back to those time and look at the Naturalization Act of 1790. This was written by the founders and stated that both citizens needed to be parents.
“And 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”
I am not sure what you meant by this has always been understood when clearly the founders of this country thought differently.