Posted on Jan 27, 2016
What is your concept of the US Constitution's requirement that the President be a "natural born" citizen?
14.7K
148
241
9
9
0
Politics
Constitution
Citizenship
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
"Natural born citizen" to me means born as a citizen. Meaning, upon birth, you are a citizen.
It seems fairly straight forward to me.
It seems fairly straight forward to me.
(14)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Natural Born, Old English term meaning born on the land and was added to the Constitution to keep Brits and Canadians Brits from becoming president and returning the US back to British rule. Only way to change that is by amendment.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Yep. The Framers didn't have a problem with an immigrant getting citizenship and becoming a senator. Mr. President they wanted born in one of the former 13 colonies/states and those states added later.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
It is very straightforward. Sadly, most people are not sufficiently informed on the law or in how to interpret it. That's why we are plagued with attorneys. (On a side note, once upon a time there were more attorneys in Southern California than the entire nation of Japan. I suspect that may still be true)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
When born they were a Citizen.
Now, here is where it gets more complex.
Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 4 - Naturalization Clause (Congressional Power):
"The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Congress Legislates how that works for anyone NOT born on US Soil (14a):
"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." (Emphasis Added)
So if you are born on US Soil, you ARE a US Citizen. Period.
However, if you are born OUTSIDE US Soil, it becomes HIGHLY DEBATABLE.
This is where "jus sanguinis" or "Citizenship through Bloodline" comes into play.
Back when the Constitution was written, you inherited your Citizenship from your FATHER (not Mother). A woman from her father or her husband.
Now in modern times, Women have their own Citizenship so a child can inherit it from either parent, and this is codified in US Law:
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents
But in recent years this has become increasingly complex, as is noted in the cases of:
Senator McCain (Born in Panama, BEFORE it became the Panama Canal Zone)
President Obama (Born to US Citizen Mother, Non Citizen Father, On US Soil)
Senator Cruz (Born in Canada [another jus soli nation], to US Citizen Mother [non-resident], Non Citizen Father)
Now, here is where it gets more complex.
Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 4 - Naturalization Clause (Congressional Power):
"The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Congress Legislates how that works for anyone NOT born on US Soil (14a):
"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." (Emphasis Added)
So if you are born on US Soil, you ARE a US Citizen. Period.
However, if you are born OUTSIDE US Soil, it becomes HIGHLY DEBATABLE.
This is where "jus sanguinis" or "Citizenship through Bloodline" comes into play.
Back when the Constitution was written, you inherited your Citizenship from your FATHER (not Mother). A woman from her father or her husband.
Now in modern times, Women have their own Citizenship so a child can inherit it from either parent, and this is codified in US Law:
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents
But in recent years this has become increasingly complex, as is noted in the cases of:
Senator McCain (Born in Panama, BEFORE it became the Panama Canal Zone)
President Obama (Born to US Citizen Mother, Non Citizen Father, On US Soil)
Senator Cruz (Born in Canada [another jus soli nation], to US Citizen Mother [non-resident], Non Citizen Father)
Are you the foreign-born child of a parent who becomes a U.S. citizen?
Foreign-born children before the age of 18 may automatically become U.S. citizens when a parent naturalizes.
(6)
(0)
1SG James A. "Bud" Parker
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - You are correct. The Constitution is not a dictionary nor a Thesaurus. It was written in plain English. We have to look elsewhere to comprehend what was common knowledge in the late 1700s.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
Actually what Justice Scalia said scares the living day lights out of me. Why, because he said that the Constitution is "Dead, dead, dead". Justice Scalia is "Wrong, wrong, wrong." The Constitution is not a "dead document", no matter the definition that Justice Scalia is currently using; and that is what he is really saying.
A "dead document" (or in the case of Justice Scalia is using - a "dead law") is a document or law that is no longer relevant, used, or has been rescinded, and is no longer in use.
To make this point more clear - the "Articles of Confederation" is a "dead document"; the "Constitution" is a "static/living document".
Though I can not see into Justice Scalia's heart or mind, BUT If the Constitution is "Dead, dead, dead" as Justice Scalia stated, it really means that the Constitution is no longer the 'Law of the Land', and those in power, can do what ever they want (though they do enough of that already) without its strictures.
Which leads us (the American people and citizenry) to the First and Second Amendments and what they really mean as stated by a number of the Founding Fathers of this country.
A "dead document" (or in the case of Justice Scalia is using - a "dead law") is a document or law that is no longer relevant, used, or has been rescinded, and is no longer in use.
To make this point more clear - the "Articles of Confederation" is a "dead document"; the "Constitution" is a "static/living document".
Though I can not see into Justice Scalia's heart or mind, BUT If the Constitution is "Dead, dead, dead" as Justice Scalia stated, it really means that the Constitution is no longer the 'Law of the Land', and those in power, can do what ever they want (though they do enough of that already) without its strictures.
Which leads us (the American people and citizenry) to the First and Second Amendments and what they really mean as stated by a number of the Founding Fathers of this country.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG Robert Webster Living things change with time. Living things evolve. Dead things are like like a fly in amber.
The Constitution is a fly in amber. It's evolution is trapped in the Amendment Process (written within that Amber itself). It is not a "Living Document." The meaning of its words do not change. The words person, people, militia, and treason are trapped in the ink of 1800~. They hold the context of the Founders & Framers. When "Interpreting" the Constitution, we are Reading Dead Men's Minds. It really is that simple.
We cannot ask what the meaning of ANY clause of the Constitution actually is. Not the Spirit at least. We must instead infer it from the Letter. To do that go through other HISTORICAL documents. We must look at the evolution of language. We use language differently now than we did 200+ years ago.
This discussion all started with the phrase "Natural Born Citizen." To us it seems like a very simple term. To the Framers it likely was as well. However there may be HUGE differences between what the Framers and us view as "Natural Born Citizens." To them, Citizenship (jus sang.) could not be passed through Mothers (Nat Act of 1790), for us it doesn't matter.
This is what Justice Scalia is referring to.
The Constitution is a fly in amber. It's evolution is trapped in the Amendment Process (written within that Amber itself). It is not a "Living Document." The meaning of its words do not change. The words person, people, militia, and treason are trapped in the ink of 1800~. They hold the context of the Founders & Framers. When "Interpreting" the Constitution, we are Reading Dead Men's Minds. It really is that simple.
We cannot ask what the meaning of ANY clause of the Constitution actually is. Not the Spirit at least. We must instead infer it from the Letter. To do that go through other HISTORICAL documents. We must look at the evolution of language. We use language differently now than we did 200+ years ago.
This discussion all started with the phrase "Natural Born Citizen." To us it seems like a very simple term. To the Framers it likely was as well. However there may be HUGE differences between what the Framers and us view as "Natural Born Citizens." To them, Citizenship (jus sang.) could not be passed through Mothers (Nat Act of 1790), for us it doesn't matter.
This is what Justice Scalia is referring to.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Dale S. - Check. That was the point or my post. Since Congress controls the rules for Naturalization (Art 1, Sect 8) specifically for anyone NOT born in the US, they have the ability to EXCLUDE candidates. The 14a says anyone born here is a Natural Born Citizen, and hence meets 1 of the 3 requirements for Presidency.
This is is mostly academic, however recent years have shown it can have "complications" like with Sen Cruz or Sen McCain, or even Mitt Romney's father (born in Mexico iirc) when he ran for President. We know they are Citizens, but are they "Natural Born Citizens?"
This is is mostly academic, however recent years have shown it can have "complications" like with Sen Cruz or Sen McCain, or even Mitt Romney's father (born in Mexico iirc) when he ran for President. We know they are Citizens, but are they "Natural Born Citizens?"
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
"Natural born" refers to someone born that does not "have to go through the naturalization process" as defined by the Supreme Court. There is a very good article from the Harvard Law Review specifically about this.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google