What is your concept of the US Constitution's requirement that the President be a "natural born" citizen?
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
This Is Scary – ‘President’ Cruz Would Not Constitutionally be ‘Subject to The Jurisdiction’ of...
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES WE HAVE by Ron Smith,2016 (Feb. 11, 2016) — Under the heading of, “you never know the impact your life
Let's look at a marriage in the 1700's. When a man and woman married the wife instantly assimilated the nationality of her husband. She was no longer known by her maiden name, say Sally Smith. She was now referred to as Mrs. John Wilson; the name of her husband. If the husband was any type of US citizen, naturalized, natural born, or just citizen all of his children by his wife were born as natural born citizens.
“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
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]
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.
Cpl Mark McMiller - President Obama was born in the US to a US mother. He is an natural born citizen. don't start a "birther" argument with me, as you will never change my position on this. Cruz was born to an American citizen which by the standards of the 1940 Nationality Act states he is a citizen by birth and thus a natural born citizen. McCain was born to American parents on a military installation on foreign soil. I myself was a few months away from being born on foreign soil but to American parents. Tell me what the difference would be had I been born in another country while my own American parents were overseas? I, like Sen Cruz, would have been naturally born an American citizen.
Further, only Barack's mother was a U.S. citizen. One would think that alone would qualify Barack for citizenship even if he was born outside the U.S. until one takes a look at U.S. law regarding citizenship at the time he was born. The law specifically required that the mother had to have lived in the U.S. for ten years, five of which had to be after the age of 14. Since Barack's mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, Barack was ineligible for citizenship unless he was born in the U.S. Obama has never proved he was born in the U.S. He has never released a copy of his actual birth certificate. The form he did release is in computer font which had not been invented yet at the time of his birth and the form has been proven to be a forgery. His social security number is from Connecticut, a place he has never lived, which makes it impossible for him to have been legally issued it. He applied for and received foreign student aid to attend college. His biography says he was born in Kenya. His paternal grandmother, half brother, and half sister say he was born in Kenya. His paternal grandmother says she was in the birth room when Barack was born and that he was born on August 4, but his birth was not registered in Hawaii until August 8. There is a birth registration for a Barack Obama, Jr. in Kenya listing the mother as U.S. and the father as Kenyan. But, yea, we should just take his word for it that he's a U.S. citizen. Keep drinking the Kool-aid, Major.
Moving on, Obama's mother never lost her citizenship and the UCLA Professor who first suggested the claim you have repeated, recanted the statement after rereading the law.
http://volokh.com/posts/ [login to see] .shtml
Sorry but you are the one who is wrong here. Again, I've heard and read all the crap on this subject and I am absolutely not an Obama fan, but I do not subscribe to this conspiracy theory. Even the Hawaiian newspaper reported the birth announcement at the time. Obama led a life of narcissism, always drumming up his own history to appear interesting or important. At times he obviously exaggerated and outright even lied about his life. But nothing has come out to definitively prove he was not born in Hawaii. Again, there is no sense in going back and forth with me on this one unless you have something new. He's a Natural Born US Citizen and at this stage of the game it's a moot point.
The Volokh Conspiracy - Correction About Natural-Born Citizen Law:
I'm afraid that I made a legal error in a conversation I had with a Chicago Tribune reporter several weeks ago, and the error understandably made its way into print. Now that I realize I've made this error, I need to try to correct it. Just to make things clear up front, I have no reason to doubt that President-Elect Obama was born in Hawaii, and is therefore a natural-born citizen. The legal issue I discussed here is a based on the purely...
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.
According to Article V, Congress shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, "on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States," meaning 34 state legislatures would have to submit similarly-worded applications calling for specific amendments or specifying the same type of amendments to be considered. Once an Article V Convention has proposed them, then the amendment or amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution.
• 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.