What is your concept of the US Constitution's requirement that the President be a "natural born" citizen?

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:11:00 -0500

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 27 at 2016 3:12 PM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:12:40 -0500

I think the Constitutional requirements are good enough. Either born on American soil or born abroad to a US citizen and having lived in the US for at least 5 years (I know it's a bit more detailed than that but I'm sure you get the idea).

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 27 at 2016 3:16 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:16:46 -0500

"Natural born citizen" to me means born as a citizen. Meaning, upon birth, you are a citizen.
It seems fairly straight forward to me.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 3:18 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:18:03 -0500

The person is granted his/her citizenship by birth.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 27 at 2016 3:34 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:34:53 -0500

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)

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.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 27 at 2016 3:41 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:41:14 -0500

I think the concept is outdated. It creates an asterisk citizen. And for someone who wasn't born here, but live 98% of my life here (95% of it as a citizen), for all practical purposes, what benefit does being born on US soil really provide?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 27 at 2016 3:59 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:59:48 -0500

The first Presidents of the USA were not natural born citizens since they were British citizens without representation when they were born in this nation 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker.
1. Anybody born to US citizens in this nation or around the world is considered a US citizen. This includis the children of diplomats, military service people, and others stationed overseas.
2. Children born in this nation to recognized and legal aliens are also natural born citizens. I was born in October 1956 to two British citizens living in this nation. I had dual citizenship and a British passport until I turned 18 and enlisted in the US Army when I became a US citizen coincident with my enlistment.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 3:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:59:55 -0500

That the person was born on US soil.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jan 27 at 2016 4:02 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:02:10 -0500

Granted at birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was pretty clear on that. The Act of 1795 didn't contain that language, yes, but neither did it define it in a contradictory manner.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jan 27 at 2016 4:34 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:34:16 -0500

To me it means "Born on US soil." I believe that was the context in that it was written at the time.

It seems fairly straight forward. But looking as other comments, its obviously not that simple.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jan 27 at 2016 4:52 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:52:33 -0500

Of course you need to be a natural born citizen. And of course, when we freed ourselves from Great Britain we were giving birth to a new country.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jan 27 at 2016 5:29 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:29:22 -0500

Old English term meaning born on the land, which was written to keep British and British Canadian from assuming the Presidency and then returning the US to British rule. The issue is that people have forgotten US History. Now want to talk about Gay vs Happy?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jan 27 at 2016 6:04 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:04:46 -0500

Natural Born in Old English meant born on the soil. Any new interpretation requires and amendment to the US Constitution and not decisions by the courts. But perhaps and old dictionary.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 6:05 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:05:52 -0500

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker A person who is a citizen from birth and has no need for naturalization. The phrase “natural born Citizen” includes any individual born to a U.S. citizen parent, whether in California, Canada, Germany, a district or territory is a U.S. citizen from birth.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 6:05 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:05:57 -0500

It means not a naturalized citizen.
For most, that means born in the United States or it's territories.
For a few (like my little brother), born of a citizen parent.
Where it gets froggy is where you are born in a country where if your born there, you garner citizenship of that country as well. Technically, you are a dual citizen unless you renounce one or the other.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 27 at 2016 7:58 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:58:43 -0500

The Framers wanted the president born in the lower 48. Oh, and Hawaii. and sometimes Alaska.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 27 at 2016 8:06 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:06:08 -0500

Has anyone ever heard of a fellow named Vattel? Or, "Law of Nations" which is a law book he authored? The only definition of natural born citizen is to one familiar to the authors of the Constitution back in the late 1700s.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 27 at 2016 8:15 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:15:36 -0500

• On July 25, 1787, Founder John Jay recommended in a letter to members of the Constitutional Convention that the term “Natural Born Citizen” (synonymous with True Citizen) be placed in Article II as a requirement for the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief, stating that only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States would be eligible for high office. Members of the Constitutional Convention agreed, adding the condition to the document that would be ratified less than two months later.

• In September of 1787, the ratified U.S. Constitution included a Natural Law term Natural Born Citizen, synonymous with the term “True Citizen,” as a condition for access to the Oval Office, in Article II. You can also find in Article I, the enumerated power of Congress to enforce The Law of Nations, which means enforce all Rights under Natural Law as defined in The Law of Nations.

“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 country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

“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.”

“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular,” - Section 215 pertaining to children of citizens born abroad, which refers back to Section 212.

Response by SFC James Barnes made Jan 27 at 2016 8:33 PM

SFC James Barnes — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:33:14 -0500

A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
Section 1 - “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.”
Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship. 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. The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized. 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.”

The fifth section details something very important, it reads
Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

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.

The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”

Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “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.”

3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?

There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act).
Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood. “To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Jan 27 at 2016 11:12 PM

SCPO Joshua I — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:12:43 -0500

As one can easily see going through the debate here, the problem is that it simply isn't defined anywhere in US jurisprudence, law, or the Constitution. It has to be, and Congress should pass a law one way or the other, which would eventually be litigated up to SCOTUS and either affirmed or otherwise defined to put this to rest once and for all.

My general feeling is that it would come down on the side of Cruz and others like him being natural born. But there's simply no definition to go to for that right now.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jan 27 at 2016 11:39 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:39:20 -0500

For you to be a "natural born" US citizen, both of your parents must be US citizens. The reason the framers of our Constitution specifically stated that the President must be a natural born citizen versus just a citizen is because they wanted to minimize the potential for any President to have loyalties to another country, which they felt someone born of foreign parents potentially could have.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jan 27 at 2016 11:53 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:53:12 -0500

After adding some historically proper information to the discussion and checking the actual US Code in reference to US Nationality, US Citizenship, and some of the interesting combinations thereof; I find it interesting enough, that if you applied a common sense understanding of the two parts that are the true basis of what should be the legal foundation and understanding, I am amazed that people do not understand what a "natural born citizen" is.
The common sense conceptual understanding that a "natural born citizen" is one that is an US "national AND citizen" AT birth; which is defined in 8 USC Section 1401 (8 USC Chapter 12 Subchapter III Part I Section 1401). In addition for clarifications sake and using a common sense reading of the applicable section of the US Code that defines what a "Nationals but not citizens of the US at birth" is - Section 1408. The sections that throw everyone for a loop are the intervening sections between Sections 1401 and 1408.

Response by SFC David McMahon made Jan 28 at 2016 1:14 AM

SFC David McMahon — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:14:13 -0500

"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.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jan 28 at 2016 7:51 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:51:09 -0500

Natural born means that a person is a citizen from birth with no requirement of any naturalization process to be considered a citizen. The reason this requirement was added was to ensure that no foreigner tried to obtain political power in the US. For example, it would be rather embarrassing if King George III, having lost the United States in the Revolution, came over here, ran for President and won.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of confusion on this issue that's led to embarrassing problems. For example, there's no doubt that Obama's mother was an American citizen so he was an American citizen from birth even if he was born in Kenya. Ditto for Ted Cruz even though he was born in Canada.

Response by Maj John Bell made Jan 28 at 2016 11:07 AM

Maj John Bell — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:07:02 -0500

If Ted Cruz is not a citizen, that means every female military member serving overseas who has a child while overseas or male military member whose dependent has a child while he is serving overseas accompanied; forfeits the right of their child to become president one day. Are you kidding me? This is nonsense. Donald Trump is an uncouth blowhard, braggart that engages his mouth before his brain. I do not encourage anger in these postings, but this one boils my blood. If Mom or Dad is a citizen, I don't care if you were born on Mars. You are a natural born citizen. NO ONE DENIES A MILITARY MEMBER THAT RIGHT FOR THIR CHILD BECAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT OF GEOGRAPHY!!!

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Jan 28 at 2016 2:22 PM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:22:18 -0500

How about we look at why the requirement to be a "natural born" citizen is paramount? The reason for this is to best ensure the loyalty of the individual aspiring to be our President. It suggests that someone who is born a citizen and remains a citizen throughout their lives will more likely remain loyal to this country. It also avoids "carpet bagging".

Personally I think we're getting too caught up with the perceptions of the words vs. the intent of the law. Is there any reason why McCain or Cruz should be considered less loyal to the US and more loyal to Panama/Canada respectively? What about another individual who was born to US parents, in a US state but spent their life since then in another country? If you're answer here is let the voter decide, regardless of how long the individual spent outside the US, shouldn't we say the same for those who were born as US citizens in another country? What about those who are born in international waters?

I am all for adhering to the Constitution, but I am not convinced the founders meant to have the requirement for President to be strictly afforded to those who were physically born here, regardless of the fact they had American parents.

Response by SPC David S. made Jan 29 at 2016 5:06 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:06:43 -0500

At this point I'll take any one that can spell chrysanthemum.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 29 at 2016 5:47 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:47:17 -0500

There were eight attempts to pass legislation in Congress to either modify or eliminate the requirement for the POTUS to be a natural born citizen between 2003 - 2008. That occurred just prior to a fellow named Obama arrived on the scene. Perhaps that is just a coincidence, but I doubt it.

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 - “Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 29 at 2016 5:52 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:52:01 -0500

The Founders reasoning for the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II is self-evident in the history of how it came to exist in our founding documents. In his letter to the Constitutional Convention, requesting the Natural Born Citizen be added as a requirement for high office under Article II, Jay explained his reasoning…

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” – John Jay letter dated July 25, 1787 (John Jay was our first Supreme Court Justice)
The reasoning of our Founders or the “original intent” of our Founders was a matter of National Security. In this case, it pertained to the highest and most powerful political office in our new nation, the office of Commander-in-Chief, or President of the United States.

The Founders reasoning and intent was clearly to prevent anyone with natural foreign loyalties or entanglements due to dual, divided or foreign citizenship, from ever holding the office of Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, as stated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, “No person except a natural born citizen, - shall be eligible to the office of President;” (or Vice President as of Amendment XII)

The section which states “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” pertains only to the Founders themselves, as they were all “citizens” of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, but none of them were “natural born Citizens” at the adoption of the Constitution.

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Jan 29 at 2016 7:29 PM

PO1 Kenneth Cardwell — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:29:46 -0500

I believe its taken the wrong way by many. If you are a natural born citizen and your child is born outside the USA, then that child should also fall under natural born citizen. Maybe that mom or dad was working outside the USA, maybe they were in the Military like I was when my children were born when I was in japan. Should not be born in the USA!

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 29 at 2016 9:14 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:14:12 -0500

Here is a good rendition of what NBC means, written by another Constitutional Scholar. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

“Natural Born Citizen” and Coverture.

At the common law, Husband and wife were “one” and The Man was The One. The legal name of this concept is “coverture”.

Married women weren’t separate legal entities in their own right. Their legal identity was subsumed under their Husband’s. Married women weren’t “citizens” in their own right.

Vattel and our Framers had the FATHER in mind in their concept of “natural born citizen”: The Man is the one who counts!

Later on, with Married Womens’ Property Acts in various States, female suffrage with the 19th Amendment, etc., this legal fiction of the wife’s legal identity being subsumed into that of her husbands, was ended. [However, as a holdover, married women still sometimes refer to themselves as Mrs. John Smith instead of Mrs. Mary Smith.]

At the time of our Framing, coverture was in full force and effect. SO it was the FATHER’s citizenship which counted. That is the original intent. That intent remains until Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 is amended pursuant to Art. V. I propose an amendment saying that both the Mother and Father must be US Citizens at the time of their child’s birth for the child to be a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.

So under the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 – which original intent continues until changed by amendment – IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO Barack Hussain Obama’s mother was, and it doesn’t matter WHO Ted Cruz’ mother is: Their fathers were not US citizens at the times they were born so THEY ARE NOT “natural born citizens”.

Posts about natural born citizen on Publius-Huldah's Blog

Posts about natural born citizen written by Publius Huldah

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 30 at 2016 12:19 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:19:11 -0500

It is quite a bit more complex than just, "Where were you born," isn't it? Here are some Supreme Court findings that articulate the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen." I've entered some links to the Supreme Court site, if you care to pursue the issue further.

The Supreme Court reference the definition of natural born citizen in 1814 in the opinion The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814)6. 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)8 we find that the Court directly references the The Law of Nation in the following paragraphs and the concepts of that text.
If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.

It is of importance here that it should be held in view that we are considering political, not moral, obligations. The latter are universal and immutable, but the former must frequently vary according to political circumstances. It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.

The Supreme Court in Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)9 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:
Nations or States are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their mutual strength. Such a society has her affairs and her interests, she deliberates and takes resolutions in common, thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself.
Again, in the first chapter of the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after

http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,indigene
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZX2.html

repeating his definition of a State, proceeds to remark that, from the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.
Again, this writer remarks: "The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic, or the State."

By this same writer it is also 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 [p477] 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 Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-16810 Chief Justice Waite wrote
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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

In United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898) the Supreme Court
That in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China, upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steampship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of ustoms, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
That, after his said return, the said Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until the year 1894, when he again departed for China upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto in the month of August,

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

1895, and applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land; and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States. That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him there from.' Because of Amendment 14 Wong Kim Ark wasa citizen of the United States. Even though his parents where not U.S. Citizens.

In Perkins, Secretary of Labor, et al. v Elg. 59 S.Ct. 884 (1939) we find a different scenario. Marie Elizabeth Elg was born to parents who were naturalized citizens who later returned to their country of origin and renounced their US Citizenship. Her mother became a US Citizen due to the naturalization of her husband in accordance with the laws of the time. In this case she was declared to be a “natural born citizen”.
What has happened over the years is that often the difference between a natural born citizen, or a person who is born in the country of parents who are citizens; and a native born citizen, or a person who has 1 citizen parent or is born under the provisions of Amendment 14 has been obscured by the misuse of the terms. The Supreme Court ruling Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)11 contains a detailed discussion of Amendment 14 citizenship and the operation of the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
When one looks at the various types of citizenships that exist in the United States one finds there are three types. A person at birth can be one of two types of citizens in the United States. The third type of citizenship only applies to foreign nationals who become a citizen. The three types are

A natural born citizen is both parents are citizen of the country and the child is born in the country. In the case of the United States you have to be born in one of the 50 States. Remember, Washington, DC is part of the State of Maryland that is on loan to the general government under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17. The territories and possessions are not part of the United States. Only the States are actually part of the United States. Congress in 1790 extended this definition and then restored the original definition in 1795. The key is both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth of the child and the child has to be born in the country. And bases in the USA itself are still part of the State in which they are located.

A naturalized citizen is a foreign national who becomes of a citizen of the country. These are people who are covered under the basic rules established by Congress using Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4. When Hawaii became a territory of the USA under Title 8, Section 1405 the citizens of the Republic of Hawaii were declared citizens. They key is the person was never a citizen before and became a citizen. Or you were a citizen and then gave it up and then became a citizen again. I know a case where a women left the USA, became a citizen of Mexico and has been denied US citizenship and is not allowed back in except for short visits to her family. She is extremely anti-USA. I heard about the case in the 1990s.

See http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/

A native born citizen basically covers all of the other variations. These are the examples and descriptions I have read from the various cases and descriptions.

A child born out of the country of parents who are citizens of the country. This sometimes can create a dual-citizenship status depending upon the country the child is born in. This is John McCain's situation. And yes this means John McCain was not eligible to be President either.

A child born out of the country where one parent is not a citizen of the country and the other parent is. This is classic dual-citizenship status. Some people claim this is Barack Obama Jr's situation and say his mother was too young to pass on USA citizenship. I have not found anything to support this view and in fact have found law indicating she still would have given Barack Obama Jr citizenship - the age is 14 in the law. The evidence at best indicates she was visiting Kenya and had not taken up residence. Even if this is Barack Obama Jr situation he would still not be eligible to be President of the United States of America.
A child born in the country where one parent is not a citizen of the country and the other parent is a citizen. Another case of dual-citizenship. This appears to be Barack Obama Jr's situation based upon the currently publicly available information. Which means he is not eligible to be President. The definition of “natural born citizen” requires both parents be citizens of the country in question.

A child born in the country where both parents are not citizens. This is the normal situation for children born to immigrant parents. The child may have dual-citizenship. This does not apply to children born to illegal aliens or visitors. Amendment 14 has a conditional clause that excludes children born to illegal aliens and visitors. You have to be "subject to the jurisdiction" and illegal aliens and visitors are not. Think of diplomats - same rules. Some writings have indicated the 1965 immigration laws might grant citizenship to children born to illegal aliens or visitors. The specific sections of the current law have not been specified in these writings. But this would be an Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 issue and not a Amendment 14 related issue.

The Venus 12 U.S. 253 (1814)

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 30 at 2016 12:42 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:42:05 -0500

We elected Barrack Obama who was not a natural born citizen because his father was a foreigner. This election cycle we suddenly have three Republicans who are not qualified.

Marco Rubio. Born in Florida to two Cuban parents.
Ted Cruz. Born in Alberta, Canada to a Canadian father. He has a Canadian birth certificate. Both of Ted's parents emigrated to Canada before Ted was born there.
Bobby Jindal. He has dropped out, but his parents were both Indian citizens when he was born.

If you noticed my previous list of Supreme Court finding that say what constitutes a natural born citizen you must wonder what is going on. Add to that the fact that there were eight attempts to pass legislation to change the meaning of NBC by Congress between 2003 - 2008; just before Obama showed ou on the radar.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Jan 30 at 2016 12:44 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:44:22 -0500

Here is a list of attempted changes to the requirement to be natural born to hold office as POTUS. All of there Bills are easily verified in the Congressional Record.

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 - “Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act - Declares that the term "natural born Citizen" in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V - natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee -- All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jan 30 at 2016 7:49 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 19:49:52 -0500

Natural born citizen means to have been born to a parent that is a United States citizen, be it within the United States or abroad.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Feb 4 at 2016 12:53 PM

1SG James A. "Bud" Parker — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:53:17 -0500

To be a natural born citizen it is necessary for your father to be a US citizen on the day of your birth within the United States. Since there has been no Constitutional Convention of States to modify this Presidential requirement we must use the original concept of the term. Here are a couple of comments by the Supreme Court Justices that identify what NBC means. (These are not the only 2)

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)8 we find that the Court directly references the The Law of Nation in the following paragraphs and the concepts of that text.

If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.

It is of importance here that it should be held in view that we are considering political, not moral, obligations. The latter are universal and immutable, but the former must frequently vary according to political circumstances. It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Feb 11 at 2016 12:19 PM

PO1 Kenneth Cardwell — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:19:38 -0500

Born to at least one US Parent! Many Military children are born overseas and they still should qualify for the Presidency!

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Feb 11 at 2016 12:33 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:33:03 -0500

I think it is the most important criteria for selecting anyone for this position of power and trust. The current guy doesn't cut it at all. At best he's half Caucasian and half Indonesian being raised in Jakarta. Still have no idea how they pulled this off.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Feb 11 at 2016 4:04 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:04:59 -0500

Okay. Here is is in a nutshell. Our Constitution makes a distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen", stating that a "citizen" is qualified to be a member of Congress but only a "natural born citizen" is qualified to be President. There is a very good, common sense, reason for this distinction: Our founding fathers had just risked everything they held dear to win their freedom from Great Britain and they didn't want to make any mistakes that might cause them to lose that freedom. Since the position of President included being Commander-in-Chief of the military, they needed to make certain that the President would be completely loyal to the country and they were concerned that someone born to a foreign parent might share loyalties with that parent and, therefore, that parent's country. So they specifically stated in the Constitution that a President must be a "natural born citizen" because at that time both of your parents had to be citizens in order for you to be a "natural born citizen." It was just common sense to them that someone whose parents were both citizens would most likely not have loyalties to another country. Their reasoning is just as valid today as it was then, especially when we see throngs of foreigners coming into our country, refusing to assimilate, placing the precepts of their religion above our Constitution, and attempting to implement their own religious legal system that is incompatible with our Constitution.

Under our Constitution, Barack Obama would never be qualified to be President; nor would Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. We've been betrayed by our politicians who swore an oath to uphold our Constitution and by our media whose job it is to keep them honest. This coming from someone who wants Ted Cruz to be President.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Feb 12 at 2016 2:22 PM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:22:24 -0500

Consider thes questions: At what time did anyone who was born on foreign soil (to at least one American parent) have to be naturalized? Once you've answered this what law states they have to do so?

Response by SCPO Deric Wright made Feb 12 at 2016 5:55 PM

SCPO Deric Wright — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:55:47 -0500

Having two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth definitely makes you natural born U.S. citizen. Having one parent U.S. makes one a dual citizen and requires renouncing citizenship from the other country and also not natural born. The only exception would be serving your country out of the U.S., any child born in that case should be considered natural born. The intent of the founders was to limit foreign influence on our country and they were right minded. What about both alien parents, certainly if one were born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens they would not be a natural born citizen.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Feb 19 at 2016 12:16 AM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:16:34 -0500

As recent article posted on the ARRA News Service by Rod Martin: "Slam Dunk: Who Says Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen? George Washington and James Madison"
http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2016/02/slam-dunk-who-says-ted-cruz-is-natural.html

ARRA News Service: Slam Dunk: Who Says Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen? George Washington and...

ARRA News Service: conservatives news: God, family & country; traditional family values, republican principles & ideals, limited government, free markets, individual freedom