It’s high time to set the record straight about a few conservatives whose names are now in the 2016 mix as I have seen more and more anti-social media posts regarding them popping up, deriding them as either ineligible or being against liberty.
Allen West…Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Such posts are utter nonsense and are being spread by those who simply haven’t done their homework or, in order to appear less radical to the left, they are trying to prove they’ll be as hard line against Republican candidates as they were on Obama regarding eligibility.
Let’s first take the eligibility concerns regarding Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
First of all, Rubio was born IN the United States much to the consternation of some who are posting otherwise on Facebook. Further, according to the 14th Amendment, “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.” While not ‘citizens” YET at the time of Marco Rubio’s birth, his parents paperwork WAS in the que and they DID BECOME citizens and WERE, at the time of his birth, ‘RESIDENT ALIENS’ of the United States meaning that they WERE “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thus considered citizens. Marco Rubio therefore, at birth, was considered a Natural Born Citizen like it or not.
Now then…Ted Cruz who, as we know, was born in Canada but IS eligible under the ONLY definition of Natural Born EVER provided by our founders and framers…the Naturalization act of 1790 which stated, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”. (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.)
Cruz’s Canadian citizenship came as the simple result of being born on Canadian soil and was a citizenship he was unaware of until last year. Upon the revelation OF it, Cruz quickly renounced his Canadian citizenship thus removing any dual citizenship from his record.
Okay…as for the stuff that some are posting regarding the definition of Natural Born being changed by the Naturalization Act of 1795…
Stow it. It wasn’t changed rather, the language regarding NBC was simply removed from the 1795 act as the Act itself was narrowed to pertain only to those wanting to BECOME United States citizens and not to those who were already citizens.
Stow also any referrals to several Supreme Court cases where some seem to think language in written OPINIONS defines Natural Born. None of them do any such thing and the cases involved were NOT Natural Born Citizen cases but…NATURALIZATION or VOTING RIGHTS cases therefore…no Supreme 
Court in our history has even heard or rendered a decision regarding Natural Born and any written opinion contained in some other case is NOT written law.
And what of Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” written in 1757 where HE provides a definition…the same definition described in those ‘nothing to do with it’ Supreme Court cases?
First of all, bear in mind that Vattel was defining Natural Born for the sake of preserving European MONARCHIES…and not for the purpose of any Constitutional republic so before you buy into the Vattel line of manucia…ask yourselves why our founders and framers who had ample access TO Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” would EVER adopt a EUROPEAN MONARCHY definition of Natural Born as they were establishing a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and had just defeated a monarchy to gain our independence?
The simple answer is…they wouldn’t and the definition THEY provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790…again the ONLY definition of Natural Born EVER provided by our founders and framers flies in the face of Vattell’s definition.
The plain fact is, other than the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Nationality Act of 1940 and its amendments stand as the only laws ever on the books to define NBC.
So, why are Cruz and Rubio eligible and Obama isn’t?
Simple.
To begin with, the only ‘proof’ we have that Obama was born in the United States is a birth certificate proven to be a forgery by a law enforcement agency but, let’s set that aside for the moment. Obama’s father, if it was Obama Sr. which I highly doubt, never became a U.S. citizen and what then of his mother? Was SHE a U.S. citizen? Yes but…according to Obama’s own recounting of the story of his birth, his mother was only 18 years old which, by law, is too young to have transferred to HIM the mantel of citizenship as she had NOT been present as a U.S. citizen for at least 5 years BEFORE his birth and, let us not forget that as a boy, Obama was moved to Indonesia where he went to school and, at that time, one had to be a citizen OF Indonesia to ATTEND school there and further, Indonesia had no recognition of dual citizenship so Obama had to have become a FULL citizen of Indonesia. In fact, his school records indicate Obama was indeed an Indonesian citizen.
Therefore, as there is absolutely NO record of an 18 year old Barack Hussein Obama becoming a United States citizen when he had the opportunity to do so…repatriate as it were…either forged or otherwise…Barack Hussein Obama is STILL, to this day, a citizen OF Indonesia.
It’s not spin or some wild gyrations that must be undertaken to make Cruz and Rubio SEEM eligible nor is it partisan politics. The cases surrounding Rubio and Cruz are factually vastly different than is the case swirling around Obama. OPINIONS may vary but the FACTS don’t and the facts, established law, the only definition of Natural Born provided by the founders and framers, Acts of Congress and their amendments and the 14th Amendment are solid. Vattel’s Laws of Nation’s definition of Natural Born being the one touted by those who are against Rubio’s and Cruz’s eligibility as the source the founders employed is at best, speculative and just because it appears in a scant handful of Supreme Court written opinions on cases that didn’t even deal with Natural Born means nothing and using those mentions as the basis for one’s opinion on the matter leads to false conclusions.
Cruz and Rubio…eligible. Obama…INELIGIBLE.
Now then…on to potential candidates and their voting records.
First, the rap against Marco Rubio as per amnesty. Here, one needs to have some measure of inside knowledge and, on Right Side Patriots, we will have Marco Rubio as a guest soon so we will get to the bottom of this but, for the time being, when Rubio sided for amnesty, he did so a great risk to his career but, in doing so, he also exposed the liberal amnesty plan for exactly what it was and perhaps that was his plan all along as once amnesty via the liberals WAS exposed, Rubio quickly opposed his own bill.
Whether or not he bowed to political pressure or planned it is something Conservatives will have to weigh for themselves but I will wait to hear Rubio’s explanation before I make MY decision.
The other possible candidate from the right side of the aisle that has garnered more than his share of unseemly social media attention over the last couple of years is Allen 
West so let’s take a look at the rap against HIM.
There are Conservatives who dumped West over three votes so let’s take them one at a time. First…the Patriot Act. West did NOT vote for the Patriot Act rather, upon entering office he and several other newly seated Conservatives voted in favor of a 90 day EXTENSION of the Patriot Act so they would have time to fully review it in every detail. At the end of that 90 day review and after doing all his homework, Allen West cast a decidedly NO vote on the Patriot Act.
Isn’t that what we WANT our elected officials to do before they vote on legislation? READ the damned thing first?
Then there was Allen West’s vote regarding NDAA. He voted FOR it and let’s face it, there are some very bad things in the NDAA but, one also must look deeper INTO the NDAA and that vote to understand it.
The most objectionable parts of the NDAA…the parts that sent some conservatives into a rage when West voted FOR it, do not ORIGINATE in the NDAA…they originate in the PATRIOT ACT which West voted AGAINST. Simply put, had each and every Member of the house AND the senate voted AGAINST the NDAA and had NDAA been struck down altogether…those highly and rig
htfully objectionable parts would have remained on the books and in practice via the Patriot Act however, had NDAA been struck down…we would have had absolutely no way to provide pay, supplies or support to and/or for our military.
The fact that the objectionable parts of NDAA originated in the PA is a political ploy. Strike down the Patriot act and those nothing but bad parts remain in place due to their inclusion in the NDAA. Strike down NDAA and they remain as part of the Patriot Act.
The third vote was in regard to Pigford, a procedural vote and West screwed that one up. When he realized his error, Allen West issued an apology, admitted it and took full responsibility FOR it without trying to spin it in his political favor.
One could not find more passionate supporters of our military nor any more steadfast in their support of our Constitution our liberties or more dedicated to a smaller, less intrusive government than Ltc. Allen West or Ted Cruz and as to eligibility, regardless of the flurry of recent posts regarding the topic, both Cruz and Rubio are perfectly eligible to serve in this nation’s highest elected office.
English Statutory Law is not English Common Law.
Children born to aliens were naturalized subjects.
“For it is not much to make a subject naturalized by the law of England: it should suffice, either place or parents. If he be born in England it is no matter though his parents be Spaniards, or what you will: on the other side, if he be born of English parents it skilleth not though he be born in Spain, or in any other place of the world. In such sort doth the law of England open her lap to receive in people to be naturalized; which indeed sheweth the wisdom and excellent composition of our law.” Francisci Baconi Baronis de Verulamio (1730)
http://books.google.com/books?id=kmlUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA204&dq=matter+though+his+parents+be+Spaniards+or+what+you+will+on+the+other+side+if+he+be+born+of+English+parents+it+skilleth+not&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aKKGU8KnOsyTqga3noHAAw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=matter%20though%20his%20parents%20be%20Spaniards%20or%20what%20you%20will%20on%20the%20other%20side%20if%20he%20be%20born%20of%20English%20parents%20it%20skilleth%20not&f=false
Children born to aliens in the US were still aliens in the eyes of the country.
See Congressman Saunders report on naturalization referenced previously, and:
“The laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization provide, in relation to persons situated as your sons are, that ‘the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States. Assuming that your three sons were born in France, accompanied you to this couutry and have continued to reside here (the fact is not distinctly stated in your letter) they, ****together with your son born here,**** are, under the provision just cited, to be considered, when dwelling in the United States, citizens of the United States, with all the rights and privileges attaching to that character …” Congressional Serial Set – Page 403 (1886)
http://books.google.com/books?id=bKkZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA403&dq=Assuming+that+your+three+sons+were+born+in+France+accompanied+you+to+this+country+and+have&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I4OGU9WhHceSyATp-YDQCw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Assuming%20that%20your%20three%20sons%20were%20born%20in%20France%20accompanied%20you%20to%20this%20country%20and%20have&f=false
Re: BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES – “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. ”
Answer: He said that was PRIOR to the adoption of the constitution, when English statutory law was still in effect. Children of aliens born in the kings territories were naturalized at birth.
Re: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Answer: From William Rawle, A VIEW … (a more complete quote)
“The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States…”
He skipped a logic step there. He assumed that anyone born in a state was a citizen of that state, after the constitution was adopted.
The children of aliens may have been considered a natural born citizen of a state by their state laws, but that did not necessarily mean that they were natural born citizens of the United States. Actually, we know by the above cites concerning the children of aliens that they were not even citizens of the US.
Re: The Lynch V Clarke ruling:
The State of New York in 1777 said:
” The status of residents was declared by the additional resolution that all persons abiding within the state of New York, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of the state, and the status of transients was declared by the provision that “all persons passing through, visiting, or making a temporary stay in the said state, being entitled to the protection of the laws during the time of such passage, visitation, or temporary stay, owe during the same time allegiance thereto.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=Rn44AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA488&lpg=PA488&dq=That+all+persons+abiding+within+the+State+of+New+York+and+deriving+protection+from+the+laws+of+the+same+owe+allegiance+to+the+said+laws+and+are+member&source=bl&ots=P_qTJOPySv&sig=HzNhoqfHPdIoU4hyCjifFUlVPs8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wHyHU93oLsGHqgbVsIL4Ag&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=That%20all%20persons%20abiding%20within%20the%20State%20of%20New%20York%20and%20deriving%20protection%20from%20the%20laws%20of%20the%20same%20owe%20allegiance%20to%20the%20said%20laws%20and%20are%20member&f=false
The argument was made in Lynch that this state law made Julia’s father, (who was staying in the US temporarily) in essence, a citizen, even though the State of New York did not directly say so. The judge misreads or misinterprets many citations because he assumes that English Statutory Law is simply declaratory of English Common Law. His comments on “Dane’s Abridgement” on page 678 is a glaring example of misreading. The entire case is an interesting read. http://books.google.com/books?id=bwwOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA606&dq=%22the+children+of+aliens%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F5phU_W6DoWnyASBnoGIBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20children%20of%20aliens%22&f=false
Then, by conflating Statutory and Common Law, he concluded that Julia Lynch was a citizen and could therefore inherit.
All of that is moot anyway, because Lynch V Clarke was repealed by the State Law in the Political Code of The State of New York (1859) http://books.google.com/books?id=l3w4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=All+persons+born+in+this+state+and+domiciled+it+except+the+children+of+transient+aliens+of+alien+public+ministers+and+consuls&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6JCHU530MI6Qqgaq44CoAQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=All%20persons%20born%20in%20this%20state%20and%20domiciled%20it%20except%20the%20children%20of%20transient%20aliens%20of%20alien%20public%20ministers%20and%20consuls&f=false
which said:
” 5. The citizens of the state are :
1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls ;”
Since Julia Lynch’s father was admitted to be a transient alien with no intention of staying in New York, his child would not have been a citizen of New York even though she was born there.
I find it interesting that the Court in Wong Kim Ark (1898) didn’t mention that the ruling in Lynch V Clarke had been effectively repealed by this law.
It is still being cited as good law, when it is not.
Jus Soli alone to make a “Natural born subject” was not English Common Law, it was English Statutory Law. Nowhere in English Law statutes was it said that it was common law.
The book of English law here DID say that children born in the realm to subject parents, and children of ambassadors born out of the dominion were Natural Born Subjects by Common Law.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hho2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA77&dq=aliens+common+law+statute+natural+born+subject&hl=en&sa=X&ei=agRfU87FDM-xyAT0vIDoBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=aliens%20common%20law%20statute%20natural%20born%20subject&f=false
Other subjects were natural born subjects by Statute; they were naturalized.
Those who say otherwise are ignorant of the difference between Common Law and Statutory Law.
Again, if the US used the English Statutory Law “natural born subjects” as the basis for “natural born citizen” then naturalized persons would also be natural born citizens. They aren’t, and the US didn’t.
The full quotation from the Lynch v. Clarke ruling is:
“By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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 only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Re: “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”
If I said, “it was never doubted that all persons who wore both suspenders and a belt would hold their pants up” does that mean that you have to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up? No, duh, it is simply listing the two ways and, of course, if you do use the two ways, you will hold your pants up. But then, you also will if you use just one of the two ways.
Subjects and citizens are different, to be sure. But not different in EVERY way. For example, subjects pull their pants on one leg at a time and so do citizens. So, what makes you think that the parent requirement is different for citizens than for subjects? Surely, IF there were a difference in the parent requirement the writers of the Constitution would have told us. But they didn’t.
I am not familiar with the 1817 quotation that you cite. But here is one from 1803 and one from 1829, and both of the writers were friends of the writers of the Constitution.
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And you know, of course, the Lynch v. Clarke ruling which said:
“It is indispensable that there should be some fixed, certain and intelligible rules for determining the question of alienage or citizenship. The place of nativity furnishes one as plain and certain, and as readily to be proved, as any circumstance which can be mentioned” (p. 658).
And also said:
y the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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 only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
Moreover, you can do a search on the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention and such other leaders as John Jay and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and you will never find a single example where they use the term Natural Born Citizen (or even just “Natural Born”) to refer to the citizenship of the parents. They ONLY used it the same way that it was used in the common law.
So, the Heritage Foundation book is right:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And you are wrong.
Re: All that they did was say that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, had both of the two possible ways of being a NBC, and so, duh, it was never doubted that she was.
Answer: There is no “or” in there.
“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”
Try reading it again.
“born in a country of parents who were its citizens”
The parents were citizens of the country the child was born in. That made the child a natural born citizen. Both parents citizenship and location of birth.
Re: NO. EVERY child born in the realm except those born to foreign diplomats and enemy invaders was a Natural Born Citizen.
Answer: “The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark understood that the English term “Natural born SUBJECT” INCLUDED SUBJECTS born in the dominion to parents under the actual allegiance of the crown..”
Included means they were part of the group “natural born subjects”, just like naturalized foreigners were part of the group “natural born subjects”.
Included means that they were part of the group “natural born subjects”, just like the children of aliens naturalized at birth by statute were part of the group “natural born subjects”.
Read the words that are actually there. I was talking about English natural born subjects.
“Every subject is either natus, born, or datus. given or made …
There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King’s dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=SzlFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&dq=%22subject+born%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W6lzU8GjFoyZyASij4KYBg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22subject%20born%22&f=false (printed 1826)
Naturalization is subjecthood given or made.
Also –
Children born to aliens in the US were not even considered citizens, much less natural born citizens.
“The children of aliens, born within the US are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.
Footnote 12) In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature.” (1817)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8340AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=%22the+children+of+aliens,+born+within+the+us+are+aliens%22&source=bl&ots=feTK3MKAUK&sig=Kpwe3kYUuZwmiscf4HX_n5jZenU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2phhU-7JBJWzyATJ64CwBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20children%20of%20aliens%2C%20born%20within%20the%20us%20are%20aliens%22&f=false
See again Congressman Saunder’s Report on Naturalization noted previously.
Natural born citizen and natural born subject are not the same thing.
A natural born citizen is someone born to citizen parents in the US.
A natural born subject “includes” born in the realm to subject parents, subjects naturalized at birth by statute, and naturalized foreigners. All were called “natural born subjects”.
Re: “they did give a definition of “natural born citizen” in the dicta.”
Answer: Actually they didn’t. All that they did was say that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, had both of the two possible ways of being a NBC, and so, duh, it was never doubted that she was. If I said to you that if you wore both suspenders and a belt it was never doubted that doing that would hold your pants up, would you think that that was saying that you had to wear both suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up? Well, that is all that the Minor v. Happersett ruling said. It NEVER said that you had to be both born in the country and have two (or even one) citizen parents in order to be a NBC.
Re: “The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark understood that the English term “Natural born subject” included subjects born in the dominion to parents under the actual allegiance of the crown..”
Answer: NO. EVERY child born in the realm except those born to foreign diplomats and enemy invaders was a Natural Born Citizen. That is what the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling said, and that is correct.
This is what Blackstone said:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.)
In Minor V Happersett they may have not been ruling on NBC specifically, but they did give a definition of “natural born citizen” in the dicta.
They did rule on citizenship and voting rights predicated on that citizenship in Minor.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark understood that the English term “Natural born subject” included subjects born in the dominion to parents under the actual allegiance of the crown (the parents were subjects), subjects made so at birth by naturalization statutes like the statutes that deemed children born out of the country to subject parents subjects themselves, and those foreigners made natural born subjects by naturalization. They were all called “natural born subjects”. It was a generic term that encompassed all subjects of the crown, except denizens. The Supreme Court Justices understood that. They weren’t ignorant. “Natural born subject” was equated to “citizen”.
They were citing English statutory law to justify the idea that if you were born in the country, you were a citizen, using the first clause of the 14th amendment.
From Wong Kim Ark ; ” 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.” i.e., birth in the country.
It said that a child of an alien was a citizen just as much as a natural born citizen was a citizen, because both were born in the country. Notice how the “natural born” one was the child of citizens?
The court also made another interesting citation: “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”
You might like to know that the Court in Minor said : “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. 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.”
Read it carefully.
It says that there was no doubt that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were “natural born citizens”.
The court went on to say that there was doubt if children born of non-citizen parents were Citizens at all.
Then the court said it didn’t have to worry about whether or not children of non-citizen parents were citizens because it didn’t apply in this case. Virginia Minor was born in the country to citizen parents. She was a “natural born citizen”.
Don’t let the phrase “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” throw you. Children born to aliens in the US were aliens or foreigners, until Wong Kim Ark made them citizens just because they were born in the US.
In Congressman Saunder’s Report on Naturalization in 1845, when speaking about the Naturalization Act of 1802, said: ” It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States, …”
http://books.google.com/books?id=YWEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA129&dq=globe+%22whether+born+within+or+out+of+the+United+States%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KzmFU7C2E4PE8gGexoGYAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=globe%20%22whether%20born%20within%20or%20out%20of%20the%20United%20States%22&f=false (third column, top)
“whether born within or out of the United States”
The provision for the children of aliens was : “That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States; …”
https://sites.google.com/site/kmaclubofamerica/1802-naturalization-act
When an alien naturalized, it naturalized his minor children too,
“whether born within or out of the United States”.
The decision in Wong Kim Ark was that ; “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
They said he was a “citizen”.
They did not say he was a natural born citizen.
By the way, Lynch V Clark (1844) was repealed by The Political Code of the State of New York (1859) http://books.google.com/books?id=l3w4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&dq=who+are+citizens+%22new+york%22+transient+aliens&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JjyFU9bEFYHq8QHA94CYAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=who%20are%20citizens%20%22new%20york%22%20transient%20aliens&f=false
“5 The citizens of the state are 1, All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls. ”
Washington DC, California, Montana, and North Dakota had similar laws on the books at the time.
Wilted Rose…None of the cases you mention were NBC cases and you cite from their written opinions. No Supreme Court has ever HEAR nor RULED on NBC. It is just a fact whether or not you like it.
In addition, there are articles like this:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
and this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
and this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett
And the Congressional Research Service and Black’s Law Dictionary, and the opinions of two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US constitution:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And, as I said, the Wong Kim Ark case really did say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and really did say that it refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders).
Here are more of the rulings:
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.
In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.
Re: “Ellen…The Kin Ark case was NOT a NBC case.”
It was a CITIZENSHIP case, and the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen because, wait for it, he was NATURAL BORN, born in the country. And to do that it had to define Natural Born, and as you can see, it did:
Here are its actual words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
Here is what some of TEN appeals courts have said about presidential eligibility, all citing the Wong Kim Ark case, and ALL saying that the Wong Kim Ark ruling did in fact say that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders):
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
The legal meaning of what the common law says in the USA is determined by THE US SUPREME COURT, and it ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six to two, one justice not voting), that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to THE PLACE of birth and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.
Hence the Heritage Foundation book is correct:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And you are wrong.
Ellen…The Kin Ark case was NOT a NBC case.
The “natural born citizen” phrase was based on English Common Law, but there appears to be confusion on just what English Common Law said.
The English Common Law said;
“All those are natural born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time their Birth, were under the actual obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.”
and
“If one of the King’s Ambassadors in a foreign Country, hath issue there by his Wife, being an English Woman, by the Common Law they are natural born Subjects.”
A New Abridgement of the Law – Joseph Sayer, Owen Ruffhead (1736)
All of the others who were called natural born subjects were made so by statute (i.e. naturalized), including those born of English parents out of the country, and foreigners who were naturalized. The statute making some foreigners natural born subjects was effective in 1740.
See – The Statutes at Large from the Magna Charta to the End of the Eleventh … – Great Britain, Danby Pickering (1765)
What these naturalized persons were called was not in dispute … “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be his Majesty’s natural born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes as if they and every of them had been, or were born within this kingdom ”
If the founders based “natural born citizen” on English STATUTORY law, then naturalized citizens would be eligible to the presidency. We know that they are not.
The founders based “natural born citizen” on English COMMON Law, so a “natural born citizen” is someone born in the country to citizen parents. (Or the ambassadors kids, since an ambassador is considered to take his country with him wherever he goes, and isn’t subject to the laws of the country he is ambassador to.)
The children of aliens, born in England, were considered “denizens” (kind of a lesser type of subject, halfway between aliens and natural born subjects), and then later deemed “natural born subjects” by statute. They were naturalized by statute at birth.
Natural born subjects by English Common Law were “natural” subjects – they were born with their status because no other country could make a claim on them because of the circumstances of their birth.
Statutory natural born subjects “acquired” their status by the operation of law, because they were not natural born – other countries could claim them because of their birth out of the country, or because of inherited citizenship from their parents.
The United States works the same way. A “Natural Born Citizen” is someone who is born in the country to citizen parents. (Or an ambassador’s child.)
All other US citizens are either naturalized by meeting the requirements and taking an oath, or are naturalized at birth by statute (See title8 – chap12 – subchapIII Nationality and Naturalization – partI Nationality at birth and Collective Naturalization-sec1401 Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/pdf/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapIII-partI-sec1401.pdf
Remember that Nationality and Citizenship are two different things. If a person was born in American Samoa, a territory of the US, they are US Nationals but not US citizens.
Note that part I is titled “Nationality at birth and “Collective Naturalization”. People who depend on these statutes for their citizenship, those who are not born in the country to citizen parents, are naturalized at birth by the operation of law. They “acquire” citizenship at birth by statute. They do become “citizens” at birth but they are not “natural born citizens”.
Remember that Congress only has power over Naturalization per the US Constitution. They can only stipulate who can be naturalized and under what circumstances.
RC Jackman, how come you quote yourself as the supposed expert in your URL? What you’re claiming is what Anderson refuted. I understand you disagree, but don’t quote yourself as an expert from another article you wrote
As Anderson wrote, there’s never been a US COURT, US LAW, US CONSTITUTIONAL PRESENTATION, OR SCOTUS RULING, that says that BOTH parents must be US citizens for a child to have US NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP – PERIOD. I truly wish there had been and also wish either the SCOTUS would rule on it or that Congress would propose an AMENDMENT on it.
Also, one does not RETAIN NBC status; one ACQUIRES it at the moment of birth. Outside of a short period in our history there’re only two types of citizenship, either NATURAL BORN or NATURALIZED. By the way, parents CANNOT renounce their minor children’s US citizenship. That’s US LAW.
Tell us, have Rubio, Cruz, or Jindal ever bee naturalized? If not then by your standards they’re illegal aliens fraudulently holding office.
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
Re: “his father, as claimed, was not a citizen; end of story. He was not and is not eligible to be the President of the United States of America.”
Answer: The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not the citizenship of th parents, and it includes every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
Re: ” Offences against the Law of Nations,” is very clearly referencing Vattel’s Law of Nations, so let’s go there:”
No it isn’t. That is not a reference to Vattel’s book, which is called THE Law of Nations (and notice that the “the” is not capitalized.). It refers to the law of nations, generic, international law—and the capitalization is because they capitalized a lot for emphasis. For example:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,”
Tranquility is not capitalized because it is a book; it is capitalized for emphasis, as is Welfare. The same with Law and Nations.
Neither Vattel nor his book is mentioned in the Federalist Papers even once, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise. John Jay, who first use the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” in his letter to George Washington was an expert in THE COMMON LAW.
I agree fully with SFWhite and mostly with Lobo VMVmc based on my studies of this issue. I disagree with PBScott as the remark about monarchy is an assumption. As such, it does not matter where Obama was born, his father, as claimed, was not a citizen; end of story. He was not and is not eligible to be the President of the United States of America.
Is this a campaign piece, a constitutional discussion piece, or a hit piece to criticize facebook users?
Follow the letter of the LAW!?
I am one of those million of other voters who will never be persuaded that Cruz or Rubio are NBCs and will not support them. Cruz, in particular, as it mirrors my sibling’s circumstances. Born to Col and other country citizen while deployed in another country. Was therefore born with dual citizenship. Upon birth, what did West Point grad utter: “too bad, can never be president.” Sib also had to renounce other citizenship at 18. Founding fathers were very clear about concerns about dual citizenship and the harm it could cause Republic.
Craig, I have to disagree with you on the eligibility of Marco Rubio. What I see is that his parents were not naturalized until 1975 and he was born in 1971. You stated, “While not ‘citizens” YET at the time of Marco Rubio’s birth, his parents paperwork WAS in the que and they DID BECOME citizens and WERE, at the time of his birth, ‘RESIDENT ALIENS’ of the United States meaning that they WERE “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thus considered citizens. Marco Rubio therefore, at birth, was considered a Natural Born Citizen like it or not.” “Only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections.” http://www.ehow.com/about_6462716_resident-alien-voting-rights.html. Being in the que shows intent, but doesn’t make them a citizen. One can become a U.S. citizen only by law or by birth, while a resident alien needs to meet a strict set of requirements to become one. Those who want to obtain permanent citizenship status by the latter method will have to pass a citizenship test. http://www.ehow.com/list_6558822_requirements-alien-become-u_s_-citizen.html#ixzz32OEik3sZ. By the definitions that I have shown Senator Rubio is a citizen born in the US, but is not a ‘Natural Born’ citizen, thus not eligible to be President or Vice-President.
Again I have to disagree with you on the eligibility of Senator Cruz. He was born in 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His father was not naturalized until 2005. You stated, “Ted Cruz who, as we know, was born in Canada but IS eligible under the ONLY definition of Natural Born EVER provided by our founders and framers…the Naturalization act of 1790 which stated, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens””’. I would agree with you except for a small detail, the phrase children of citizens. Citizens is plural in this case if they wanted only one parent to convey natural born citizenship it would read ‘a citizen’. This implies, the way it is written, that both parents need to be a citizen. Only Senator Cruz’s mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, thus he not eligible to be President or Vice-President although he is a citizen.
If either of these men are on the ballot for President, I will leave that selection blank unless the rules are changed between now and then. It’s too bad as I believe both of these men would make a fine President.
As far as Allen West is concerned, I have no reservations voting for him if he is on the ballot.
AFTER OBAMA’S TWO TERMS DOES ANY OF THIS DISCUSSION REALLY MATTER? WE SHOULD BE EXAMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE CANDIDATE OVER SPLITTING HAIRS AND BEING POLARIZED OVER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
Please say you can justify your argument against this, I REALLY want Cruz 2016:
Article I, Section 8, 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
The second part, “and Offences against the Law of Nations,” is very clearly referencing Vattel’s Law of Nations, so let’s go there:
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.
The argument is clarified further by John Jay’s correspondence with George Washington on the subject; he asserted the office of President was such a critical position that strident requirements should be placed on any who might hope to attain that position. He suggested those requirements should be BOTH “jus soli” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jus+soli) AND “jus sanguinis” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jus+sanguinis).
So, what we have is Vattel’s work, The Law of Nations, mentioned in the main body of the Constitution, stating “The Congress shall have Power” (in Clause 1, with it and the following clauses enumerating those powers) “To define and punish” “Offences against the Law of Nations” (as indicated by the conjunction “and” between the first and second parts of Clause 10). This clearly gives legal authority to The Law of Nations. Then we have the Law of Nations stating, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Add to that John Jay’s letters to Washington on the subject.
Still, your argument concerning the Naturalization act of 1790 is compelling, though it stumbles over the requirement: “children of citizens of the United States.” A citizen applicant and an actual citizen are two different states.
SFWhite…
I knew SOMEBODY would go there and you did. Now…Allow me to make your day a little less sunny…
“international law, also called public international law or law of nations, Bentham, Jeremy [Credit: Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London]the body of legal rules, norms, and standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that are legally recognized as international actors.” The term was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)…. (48 of 12,746 words)
So as you can clearly see…in the time of the founders and framers…Law of Nations was widely used to mean…International Law and therefore, it is a better than fair bet that Vattel titled his book such that it meant…International Law but that doesn’t alter the fact that in writing about Natural Born…HE was writing about how to preserve a MONARCHY and we…are not…a monarchy.
How different things would be if Obama had been vetted as thoroughly as the three Republicans in question.
I did not see or hear such speculation before Obama was voted in.
The Law says Rubio, Cruz and West are eligible for the Presidency. Since all three are true Conservatives with a deep desire to bring our country back to a Nation of Laws…The Constitution and are true Patriots I will vote for any of the three.
On a side note all three of these men know the Laws, are honest, admit mistakes when they make them and have their own thoughts which is evident because none of them use a Teleprompter with words someone else has written.
Allen West – the only candidate who has not faltered in his Constitutional and conservative principles and who has defended his country in a uniform which, I believe, should be a requirement before even thinking of running for President.
Re: “Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jindahl (sp?) are all ineligible as they do not fit the ONLY written definition of natural born citizen in existence at the time of the adoption of the constitution, the one in “Law of Nations.”
Answer: If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to switch from the common law that they were familiar with as lawyers and justices (and most of them were lawyers or justices) to the SWISS philosopher Vattel, they would have said so. But they never did, and in fact they did not mention Vattel or his book “The Law of Nations” in the Federalist Papers even once, while they mentioned the common law about twenty times and always with praise. John Jay, who first used the term Natural Born Citizen in his letter to George Washington was, wait for it, AN EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW. Tucker and Rawle and the Heritage Foundation book are right, and you are WRONG.
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jindahl (sp?) are all ineligible as they do not fit the ONLY written definition of natural born citizen in existence at the time of the adoption of the constitution, the one in “Law of Nations.”
(Blackstone wrote of natural born subjects, the 14th amendment was not written)
Out of respect for the constitution and America I will not vote for ineligible candidates. There are millions like me. Please factor that into your matrix as you calculate the odds of winning a national election.
My disgust and disdain for political parties is not limited to just one. I can be repulsed by liars and cheats from either wing of the Leviathan.
More reading on the subject of Natural Born Citizen status:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And, BTW, both Tucker and Rawle KNEW and were friends with many of the members of the Constitutional Convention.
Re: “A natural born citizen of the United States is a child born of two citizen parents. It matters not where the child was born. In order to confirm NBC status, a father must also have been a prior resident of the U.S. In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship.”
HOWEVER, that statement is wrong. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, and every child born on US soil (and Jindal and Rubio and Obama all were, but Cruz wasn’t) is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and the members of invading foreign armies.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
. . . . . . . . . . NO!
Cruz was born in 1970, but his father wasn’t naturalized until 2005.
Rubio was born in 1971, but his father wasn’t naturalized until 1975.
Their parents were not both citizens at the time of their births.
THEREFORE, CRUZ AND RUBIO ARE NOT “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS”.
“A natural born citizen of the United States is a child born of two citizen parents. It matters not where the child was born. In order to confirm NBC status, a father must also have been a prior resident of the U.S. In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship.”
http://wweethepeople.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/09/08/natural-born-citizen-2/
That’s a great opinion RJC but one which is not supported by any law.
Re: “Sorry, but there is a difference between being a citizen and being a natural-born citizen. ”
Answer: Yes there is. There is a difference, but there is only one difference. The difference is that the category “citizen” includes naturalized citizens. The category “Natural Born Citizen” EXCLUDES naturalized citizens. But that is all that it excludes. Every citizen who was not naturalized is a Natural Born Citizen. Since Rubio and Jindal and Obama were never naturalized—-and all of them were born on US soil—-they are Natural Born Citizens.
Sorry, but there is a difference between being a citizen and being a natural-born citizen. The 14th Amendment speaks of citizenship, but does not address natural born citizenship, and was intended to clarify the status of freed slaves after the civil war. Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen, and is not eligible to be president. Neither am I (my mother was an Irish citizen who lived here on an immigrant visa her entire life), and neither is the current occupant of the White House, whose father was a citizen of Kenya.
I am all for Ted Cruz in 2016.
He is more presidential than Allen West, and they basically believe the same things. West just says things to controversially. He calls people “stupid” etc…
Rubio sold out for amnesty. Never getting my vote.
That leaves Cruz. A national debate champ who stood on the floor for 21 hrs in defense of freedom (and afterwards went on Rush). The best congressional voting record in 2013. The man James Carville called the “most fearless and talented Republican” since Reagan.
Its easily Ted Cruz.
http://www.RunTedRun.com
While some of your statements are factually off-base, your conclusions as far as the eligibility of Cruz and Rubio are correct. At the very least, you’re working to broadcast the facts regarding two viable candidates. I do appreciate the effort.
Whether or not Rubio and Cruz actually are NBCs or not, a lot of people (like me) do not believe they are and will never vote for either one of them for president or vice president. So they will have that additional handicap getting elected.
But did Rubio sale out to Illegal act at the tune of 30 million dollars?
The stuff you say about eligibility is crap. One word, Christian conservative constitutional scholar Herb Titus.
Just because Obama and his minions trash the constitution…..
cordially,
Jack Sonnemann
BTW I was just about to share this article. I am glad I took a look at it first!
Jack…”Christian conservative constitutional scholar Herb Titus” is, in fact…6 words and we’re supposed to take toe rantings of a common core math jumkie who doesn’t know the difference between 1 word and 6 as an authority on this or ANY subject?