2
1
1
I'm not being Sarcastic, making a joke, neither meant disrespect. Though I'm taking a humorous look at the Issue.
This is what the Constitution says in Article II Section I. And I quote in part.
"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;..."
The intended Humor is in the following.
Now, Most human beings like ALL other Creatures are born Through a Natural Process or Naturally. Some people in the Modern World were born via C-Section aka. a Cesarean procedure. So I'm guessing that with all the Fuss made and suspicions brought about the current POTUS not being a born citizen. Then maybe someone born via C-Section could also be in jeopardy of not being allowed to be POTUS, 'cause it was "NOT" the Natural but a Medical way. Then there's the other question that comes to mind; What about those "conceived" in Vitro or by Artificial Insemination?
JUST ASKING!
This is what the Constitution says in Article II Section I. And I quote in part.
"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;..."
The intended Humor is in the following.
Now, Most human beings like ALL other Creatures are born Through a Natural Process or Naturally. Some people in the Modern World were born via C-Section aka. a Cesarean procedure. So I'm guessing that with all the Fuss made and suspicions brought about the current POTUS not being a born citizen. Then maybe someone born via C-Section could also be in jeopardy of not being allowed to be POTUS, 'cause it was "NOT" the Natural but a Medical way. Then there's the other question that comes to mind; What about those "conceived" in Vitro or by Artificial Insemination?
JUST ASKING!
Posted in these groups: 
Citizenship
Constitution
Citizenship Constitution
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
14
14
0
It has a has a specific meaning: As you are referring to the United States, I will too. It means someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth without needing to go through a naturalization proceeding to attain citizenship.
(14)
(0)
4
4
0
That part of the Constitution has nothing to do with the method of birth, but whether the individual was born a citizen of the U.S. or was not. In other words, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.
The Fourteenth Amendment also defines who is a citizen.
The Fourteenth Amendment also defines who is a citizen.
(4)
(0)
CDR C. Kerchner
The adjective "natural" in this use means by Natural Law, not man-made law. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
(0)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
SFC (Join to see) - Why? You can still run for State Governor, Congress, a Cabinet Post, go to WP or just be a happy regular Joe.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The adjective "natural" in this use means by Natural Law, not man-made law. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
seriously? it does not matter how, c section or not as long as you are born in US of A , you are a natural born citizen.
(2)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
Partially right. If you are born to American citizen parents living, working, or assigned by the military to a base in a foreign country, you are a natural born U.S. citizen, as well.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SPC Luis Mendez
CDR C. Kerchner - The Constitution framers were big on that "Natural Law" and the "Enlightenment" things.
(1)
(0)
SSG Laureano Pabon
Ok looky here I was a C section birth so POTUS is out for me since its not a Natural Birth lol
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
People: please provide references for your opinions on this topic, not simply the opinions themselves. Thank you.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Here is the reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
Neither Barack Obama nor Ted Cruz is eligible to be President, no matter where they were born. Neither had two parents who were citizens at the time of their births.
Here is the reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
Neither Barack Obama nor Ted Cruz is eligible to be President, no matter where they were born. Neither had two parents who were citizens at the time of their births.
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1]
(1)
(0)
1SG James A. "Bud" Parker
The Supreme Court reference the definition of natural born citizen in 1814 in the opinion The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814). Justice J. Washington of the Supreme Court stated,
"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."
Justice J. Washington translated the French text of Monsieur De Vattel's The Low of Nations Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph Number 212 himself according to the records of the time.
In the Supreme Court decision Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U. S. 242 (1830) we find that the Court directly references the The Law of Nation in the following paragraphs and the concepts of that text.
The Supreme Court in Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Justice Daniel in a separate opinion quoted The Law of Nations extensively in his pre-Amendment 14 opinion.
Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, 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 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. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.
Once again the term “natural born citizen” is distinctly referenced.
"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."
Justice J. Washington translated the French text of Monsieur De Vattel's The Low of Nations Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph Number 212 himself according to the records of the time.
In the Supreme Court decision Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U. S. 242 (1830) we find that the Court directly references the The Law of Nation in the following paragraphs and the concepts of that text.
The Supreme Court in Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Justice Daniel in a separate opinion quoted The Law of Nations extensively in his pre-Amendment 14 opinion.
Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, 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 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. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.
Once again the term “natural born citizen” is distinctly referenced.
(0)
(0)
To add more humour to this, children born via In vitro fertilisation are also not qualified for presidency.
(1)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
Certainly some food for though! The questions would be; What if the Donors of either eggs or sperm are foreigners, one of them not living in the US at time of birth? Then the other case of foreign women with enough $$$$ getting impregnated by American sperm? These might be similar cases to the so called "Anchor babies" or "Birth Tourism" happening in California and other States. Seriously now!
(1)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
SPC Luis Mendez
Or in an extreme scenario, two loaded foreigners send their egg and sperm to be born in a test tube on US soil. WHOA!
Or in an extreme scenario, two loaded foreigners send their egg and sperm to be born in a test tube on US soil. WHOA!
(1)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
SrA Edward Vong - BINGO!! You got it! With the advancements of Technology, the medical sciences, especially in the Field of Reproductive procedures that scenario is Possible. The Constitution is in URGENT Need of an Overhaul to bring it Up to Date. Thanks!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would submit the method of delivery at birth is not part of the definition, or ever has been. The Constitution has defined, and Congress generally accepted a specific definition. A more detailed review of the topic may be found at the following link in a Harvard Law Review on the subject form 11 Mar 2015:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
“Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
“Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve
(1)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
MAJ Alvin B. - I may open a tread about that, 'cause the subject has always interested me since childhood, after reading the History of both Countries and noticing the many commonalities such as language, British ancestry, long standing Military alliances, Business and Commercial partnerships, et al. etc.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
MAJ Alvin B. - I need to do some further reading about. If I do open such a tread I will be looking for your comments.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Natural Born means being born in the country to citizens of the country. Different era results in different language connotations. My children were born in Germany as a result of my service so a special form needed to be completed to guarantee their citizenship in the US.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Correct with one proviso, it means anyone who is born in this country, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). It is a principle of citizenship known as "jus soli" ("right of the soil").
(2)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
SSG John Thornton - Yes, absolutely! But the question is; if it's the same as "Natural" born?
(0)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
SSG John Thornton - Of course it does not have to go thru naturalization, that's a whole different thing. However they still have to file paperwork. I refer you to comments by Capt. Gregory Pickett and SFC William Wade for a case based comment.
(1)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
SSG John Thornton - You forgot original filing of Birth Cert. that's done by the 'rents!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google