12 votes

Is 'Natural Born Citizenship' & the Constitution a 'Dead Letter?'

When I recently heard the name of Ted Cruz and his possible presidential candidacy, particularly on a site like DailyPaul, where intelligent discussion should prevail, I got sick to my stomach! To even consider in passing, without condemning and dismissing a potential Cruz run for president as unconstitutional, is very disturbing, considering the "natural born citizen" (NBC) eligibility requirement for President in ARTCLE II, SECTION 1 of the US CONSTITUTION, with which we should all be familiar by now. The same eligibility standard is applied to the Vice President by the 12th Amendment. In case you don't know by now, NBC requires birth on US soil to US citizen parents. And yes, the US Supreme Court defined NBC as such in its 1875 decision entitled MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, which is still good law binding on all US courts. But you would never know it from the misinformation paraded by the MSM or ignored by most other sources. We need to study and educate ourselves regarding the Constitution.

How many on this site actually believe that merely being born a citizen is the same as NBC? If our founders thought so, why did they chose a legal term of art, NBC, instead of "born a citizen" language (as proposed by Alexander Hamilton)? Were our founders stupid or illiterate? If NBC meant "born a citizen", why would they have used the former term when the latter or similar language would have sufficed? Were our founders not concerned about insuring the undivided loyalty of future Presidents? Anyone "born a citizen" of the US could be born with one or even two non-US citizens, eg. American mother and British father, born in the US to legal or illegal alien(s), or born and raised on foreign soil, and still be eligible for president. Having just fought and won their independence from the British in a long, bloody war, and worried about future invasion or subversion by foreign forces, the chance that our founders intended NBC to mean "born a citizen" = ZERO!

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cruz not only was not born on US soil (born in Canada) but also had a non-US citizen (Cuban) father at birth, and therefore was born with dual or possible triple (Canadian, American & Cuban) citizenship. If being born on US soil is optional for NBC, what the h*ll was all the fuss about Obama being born in Hawaii or not? Is Cruz trying to out-do Obama in his ineligibility? So what is Cruz doing? Is he ignorant of the NBC requirements for President set forth in the US Constitution? The Constitution he swore a solemn oath to support and defend! Is he that power hungry to be President? Is the power, high honor and prestige of US Senator not enough for him? Must he seek the presidency? Are he and his backers testing the waters to see what kind of push-back he gets from the political and legal establishments, the media, or the people? Is he that willing to subordinate the good of the nation and his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution to his ambition? Are we? Ted Cruz is clearly not a NBC and therefore not eligible to be President or Vice President. But in ignoring his oath, he may be much worse! And what does that say about us?

In failing to condemn such a run, we are in effect enabling the continued violation and degradation of the US Constitution and our respect for the rule of law. How many of you on this site are aware that most of the Republican candidates or proposed candidates for President and Vice President in the last two election cycles were NOT eligible for the office, or had doubtful qualifications? The list, supported by ample evidence online, includes McCain (born in Panama, not then yet US territory), Rubio (Cuban parents became naturalized US citizens when Marco was age 5), Santorum (not clear if his Italian father became US citizen before Rick's birth), Jindal (Indian parents became US citizens when he was aged 5 & 10, respectively) and Romney (not clear if Mexican-born father George had US citizenship when Mitt was born). What's up? Neither major party is able to find any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates that are clearly eligible to serve under the Constitution? Coincidence? You gotta be kidding! There are no coincidents at this level. Nobody runs for high office in this country, especially for US Senator or President, without backing from powerful sources. This stuff is planned well in advance and candidates are groomed and developed to serve many purposes. Think Obama! Think this is a side issue of little or no importance and I am crazy to focus on it? Think again!

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 of the US CONSTITUTION provides that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land". ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 3 provides that "The Senators and Representatives ... the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judical Officers, both in the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ..." Apparently our founders felt that adherence to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, was so essential to our self-government and liberty that public officials must be bound by oath to support it.

It is said that "you can't make a 'silk purse' out of a 'sow's ear'." Even election to the office of President or Vice President cannot make a "President elect" or "Vice President elect" eligible to the office if he or she is not qualified or eligible to begin with. This is made explicitly clear in the 12th AMENDMENT, last sentence: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States". Furthermore, the 20th AMENDMENT, Section 3. provides: "...if the President elect shall have failed to quality, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case where neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualifed."

Note that these amendments absolutely require eligibility and qualification to these offices, rather than mere election. So even if Congress, the Courts and the people fail to act, or everyone in the country agreed he should be President, the unqualified or ineligible "President elect", even if democratically "elected" by the people, is still ineligible and in office illegally, and such imposter or usurper, the "sow's ear", though dressed up to look like a "silk purse", is still a "sow's ear"; and yes, "the Emperor has no clothes". Essentially, the Presidency has been taken over by an illegal coup, and we are living under a tyrant. How does that sit with you, my fellow DailyPaulers?

We can continue to vote in elections periodically and delude ourselves into thinking that we are still "the land of the free and the home of the brave", but that is clearly a lie because we are neither. Arguably, we are no longer sovereign citizens of a constitutional republic, but have been transformed into mere subjects of a "democracy" run by the "people" and its ruling elites, including our "elected" but constitutionally unqualified, ineligible "Emperor". So when, if ever, are we going to stand up for the Constitution? If not now, when? Unless we take action to right this perversion of our republic, our Constitution has become a mere "dead letter", a document we honor in the breach, an historic relic that we pay lip service to, and the rule of law it espouses has degenerated into the rule of men. History, and our children and grandchildren, will judge us later.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
bigmikedude's picture

Between Obama getting into office,

Cruz talking about running, and Rubio kicking it around, it seems it has been accepted as common understanding that as long as you were not conceived in a test tube, you are a natural born citizen.

deacon's picture

I"m confused

them reps aren't born in test tubes?
I thought they were.,most of the lot of them act/talk the same way
can't tell the wmmin from the men

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

How can anything that exists in nature, not be natural?

synthetic is a dumb word. we need to get rid of it.

AND, since truth is subject to perspective. then we need to get rid of those terrorists who think truth. can be "self-evident"

(sarcasm)

Natural Born Citizen

Is like your last name. You inherit it from your married parents. If your parents werent married then you would be "given" either your father or mothers name.
NBC is by inheritance.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

And..

Thats exactly what I'm getting at. Lawman reminds me of the type that would've argued that Goldwater wasn't eligible to be president because he wasn't born in one of the the Unites States at the time of his birth. These debates have been going on for a very long time and I think the definition of an NBC has been vetted by now.

LIVE FREE OR DIE

I posted this in another post of mine BUT...

It is important for Lawman to realize that the Constitution does not explicitly define a natural born citizen. What the Constitution does say is, "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". We must also take into account The Naturalization Act of 1790 which explicitly says, "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".

As well as the Congressional Research Service Report that explains, "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth""

So, since Cruz was born to an American and granted American citizenship AT BIRTH, he also would be considered a natural born citizen. It's funny because I too was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to American parents and as a result I was born with American citizenship and thats why I not only have a Canadian passport but also an American one as well. But don't get me wrong I stand with Rand and Ron and always will unless they give me reason not too.

Also, in your post on what constitutes a NBC you point to Minor v. Happersett which was a case where the Supreme Court upheld the law at the time which made it illegal for women to vote. Do you also agree with its ruling that women aren't NBCs and shouldn't be allowed to vote? Also If you took a closer look at that case you would also know that it was overruled by the Nineteenth Amendment which was adopted by the Constitution in 1920.

LIVE FREE OR DIE

"The weight of legal and historical authority..."

If you want a different perspective on the "The weight of legal and historical authority..." [a.k.a. Jack Maskell's failure of a report:], you may view my argument against Rubio, in the comments section, under this poll:

http://www.wepolls.com/r/15086068/2016%3A-Biden/Clinton-vs-P...

'Natural-born' citizenship

The Supreme Court in Minor simply pointed out that the US Constitution did not grant voting rights to ANYONE, men or women. Voting rights were determined by the STATES, not the federal government, so there was no way for the Court to grant voting rights to women. Courts are not supposed to MAKE law, just interpret them. It would have been illegal and tyrannical for the Court to have overstepped its bounds and created or invented a federal right to vote; that is the job of the legislative branch, ie. the representatives of the people, to do, if granted that power under the Constitution, or by the people via constitutional amendment. I doubt you are an attorney or have legal training or you would know that.

In order to reach the issue of suffrage for women, the Supreme Court first had to find that Ms. Minor was a citizen, which they did. They determined that she was in fact a citizen, without having to define citizenship in general, because she happened to have been born in the US to US citizen parents, and therefore was a "natural born citizen"(NBC). And because she was a NBC, she was of course a CITIZEN! The Court adopted this definition of NBC from de Vattel's 1758 treatise "The Law of Nations" as cited and adopted in their earlier cases, The Venus (1814), Shanks v. Dupont (1830) and Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

The people remedied this dilemna for women suffrage by passing the 19TH AMENDMENT, ratified in 1920, which created a US Constitutional right for citizens to vote without regard to sex. Prior to that, any one or more of the states could have done so, as some began to do. But Congress could not pass a federal law forcing the states to grant voting rights to women, or creating a federal right to vote for women (or anyone else) since the Constitution granted them no such power.

Minor's definition of NBC as those born in the country to citizen parents was a finding that was essential for its ruling regarding Ms. Minor's right to vote, or lack thereof. Its NBC definition is therefore binding law and precedent for all future US Courts. Its definition can only be overruled by the Court itself or changed by Constitutional amendment. Its ultimate finding that the US Constitution granted voting rights to no one, and therefore that Ms. Minor did NOT have a federal constitutional right to vote, was correct. This status was changed by the 19TH AMENDMENT. But Minor's definition of NBC was NOT repealed by this amendment, nor has Minor ever been overruled by the Supreme Court, and in fact has been repeatedly adopted by the Court in subsequent rulings, including Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v. Elg (1939).

So your assertion that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment, implying that its definition of NBC was somehow overruled, when it clearly was not, is false, misleading and reckless. But I guess you knew that, didn't you?

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Natural Born Citizen defined...

History & logic yield a clear definition of "natural born citizen" even without resort to Court decisions:

1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, then presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, proposing that the President be a "natural born citizen" (NBC): “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.” Foreigners were those with foreign citizenship or allegiance, including "dual" citizens.

2) Shortly after the convention concluded, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the President be "born a citizen of the United States": "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407);

3) The Convention adopted the more stringent NBC requirement for Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution presidential eligibility clause, as distinguished from Hamilton's "born a citizen" standard, and of course, from a mere "citizen" standard: "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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

4) NBC was a legal phrase with which the founders were well familiar from the works of Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" and from other authors and works which they used to accomplish their goal of insuring that future Presidents would have undivided loyalty and allegiance to America;

5) Americans had recently won their independence from the British in a bloody 8-year long war and were justifiably concerned about the loyalty and allegiance of future Presidents and the risk of foreign influence on their new nation and its chief executive and commander-in-chief;

6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by his birth on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to one or even two foreign (including British) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unthinkable to the founders and could not have been overlooked or adopted by them.

7) The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the wake of he Civil War, merely defined "citizens" as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it says nothing about NBC, which is a special type of citizen. In not even attempting to redefine NBC or amend or delete Article II, Section 4, it left NBC alone, ratifying its status as a special type of citizenship.

THEREFORE: the only logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC requires:

1) Child's birth on US soil; and
2) US citizenship of both parents at child's birth.

Furthermore, citing and following its dicta (opinions not needed for its rulings) in several of its earlier Supreme Court cases, NBC was
defined by the US Supreme Court in its holding in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which held that the plaintiff was a CITIZEN of the US because she happened to be a NBC, stating that: “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". This holding has been followed and cited by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases and has never been overruled.

The Court in Minor, in light of the 14th Amendment, chose not to define "citizen", leaving that definition for another day, but determined that Ms. Minor was in fact a NBC, as defined in its dicta in previous decisions, and therefore logically was, of course, a "citizen". This finding that Minor was a citizen was essential to its decision in the case; therefore, its definition of NBC is not merely dicta, or comment in passing not necessary for its decision, but law binding on other Courts as precedent until overruled by the Court itself.

Despite the foregoing, many people and even some misguided lower Courts, have ignored or dismissed Minor and subsequent Supreme Court cases that have cited it, thought it is binding law and precedent, and continue, whether intentionally or negligently, to confuse, misunderstand or equate "natural born citizen" (NBC) with "born citizen", "citizen at birth", or "native-born citizen", or with mere "citizen", when logic and common sense make it clear that NBC is a more stringent subset of citizenship, the type of citizenship that most of us acquired "naturally" upon our birth in this country to American citizen parents.

This type of citizenship is "natural" since it is the only type of citizenship that requires no special laws, treaties or constitutional amendments and results naturally upon our birth; so logically we can be nothing other than American citizens, free of foreign identity or allegiance, whether dual or otherwise. Shouldn't American presidents be required to have the same type of citizenship that most of us Americans have, free of foreign identity and influence? Of course! That's why the founding fathers chose the "natural born" citizenship requirement for President, and not merely "citizen", nor "born citizen, "citizen at birth", "native-born citizen" or their equivalent.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

If you say false statements over and over and over ...

does that make them true?

1. They picked Jay's phrase over Hamilton's because they preferred the shorter phrase.
2. MvH, in the opinion, explicitly states that the full definition of NBC has never been defined and that this decision does not define it.
3. NBC was never used until it was used in the Constitution. Natural Born Subject, maybe, but never NBC.
4. There are only two types of citizens according to law and the constitution. Natural Born and Naturalized. None specifically defined and all strictly under the jurisdiction of congress according to the constitution.

You keep saying the same wrong things over and over.
I don't think that makes them true. But do your best.

God Bless.

You say that there are two types of citizens. I disagree.

What about a person like John McCain who was not born in the US, but to US citizen parents. (He was born in Panama and not even on a US military base, but a local hospital.) He was a citizen of Panama at birth because of the laws of Panama. He received his US citizenship by operation of a 1934 federal statute which automatically granted citizenship to him effective on his first birthday, so he could not have been a natural born citizen since he wasn't even a US citizen at birth. What would be the point of this 1934 law granting US citizenship to certain people born to US parents in Panama if he received his US citizenship at birth? To be naturalized, don't you need to apply for citizenship? So since he was not born in the US and did not apply for naturalization, I think he received his citizenship by statute, a third possibility to receive citizenship. Read the requirements for naturalization which requirements would not apply to McCain.

And what about this, the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Amen!

Amen!

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Well I am not sure what you are talking about ...

but ...

anytime congress decides a person is a citizen after their birth, then they are considered naturalized.

and anytime a person is born a citizen then they are considered natural born.

so I think in the case you described they would be considered naturalized. They may not have gone through some sort of bureaucratic process, but they were declared a citizen after birth and therefore naturalized.

I hope that helps.

You are truly the pot calling

You are truly the pot calling the kettle black! You are the one who keeps spouting false statements and claiming they are true and then accusing me of doing exactly what you do. It's called projection. Stop it! As for your statement 2. you assert the following:

"MvH, in the opinion, explicitly states that the full definition of NBC has never been defined and that this decision does not define it."

Your assertion is just plain wrong and the opposite of what the Court clearly said. Where does it state that NBC has never been defined? It doesn't! On the contrary, it defines as NBC "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens". Let's review the salient language of the Court's ruling:

"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."

With this language the Court defined natives or NBCs as "CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS. PERIOD! And of course as NBCs, they were clearly and undoubtedly CITIZENS. In their decision, they equate the term "natives" with NBCs, but "natives" in this context logically cannot be identical to "native born" citizens unless, of course, these "native born" citizens are born to citizen parents.

The Court ruling continues: "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 the FIRST." So "children born within the jurisdiction WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS" may or not, depending on the authoritIes, be WHAT??? BE INCLUDED AS CITIZENS!!! NOT be included as NBCs!!! which would, of course, depend on the citizenship of their parents.

And once more, to make it crystal clear, the Court notes: "As to THIS CLASS there have been DOUBTS, but never as to the FIRST." What is "this class"? From the simple construction of the English language, it is clearly those "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents".

And what is the FIRST class? Clearly "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens", ie. NBCs. And what were the DOUBTS about? Clearly, whether or not "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" would be included AS CITIZENS, not whether or not they should be included as NBCs, which the Court had already described and defined as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

Maybe you just don't like the Supreme Court's ruling in the Minor case defining NBCs as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens". In that case, you won't like the Supreme Courts adoption of this definition of NBC in its earlier cases, namely The Venus (1814), Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Dred Scott (1857), nor in later cases in which they adopted Minor's NBC definition in Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v. Elg. (1939). Fine, say so! You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to lie about the facts or the finding of the case.

In your statement 2, you claim "They picked Jay's phrase over Hamilton's because they preferred the shorter phrase." Your joking, right? Jay's phrase, "natural born citizen" (NBC) was shorter than Hamilton's "born a citizen"? And the founders used NBC, which term was defined in Vattel's 1758 treatise "The Law of Nations" as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens", rather than "born a citizen" BUT THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME MEANING?? You gotta be kidding? Do you actually read the nonsense you post?

By the way, as to the false statements that you accuse me of making, you never seem to actually address them specifically. Instead, you simply throw mud at the wall with ad hominem attacks, hoping some of it will stick, and then make your own points without grounding them in reliable Court rulings, legal authority or good logic. You are good at disparaging and confusing but not good at clarifying or educating.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

MvH

"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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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 !!!!! It does not define NBC !!!!! It says that born on soil to citizen parents clearly is NBC. It does that explore the other options.

Are you literate?

Usually when I see this type of stubborness it is with the stormfront crowd. Is that what this is? You don't like Cruz because he isn't "one of us"?

You state: "READ IT !!!!! It

You state: "READ IT !!!!! It does not define NBC !!!!! It says that born on soil to citizen parents clearly is NBC. It does that (sic?) explore the other options."

But your quote from the decision clearly states "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". So NBC = "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens". Whether you like it or not, THIS IS A DEFINITION! Get it? Who are you claiming is illiterate?

There are no other options to explore for NBC, just other options to explore for CITIZENSHIP! In your mind, you apparently think the Court is referring to other options for NBC, when it was simply stating that there are other options for CITIZENS. Usually when I see this type of stubborness, well ... frankly, I don't usually see this type of stubborness!

As I have repeatedly mentioned in my post and comments on this topic, the Court in Minor was focusing on CITIZENSHIP, NOT NBC, since it needed to establish that Ms. Minor was a CITIZEN before it could determine whether her status as a citizen entitled her to vote. And because it found that she was a NBC, she therefore was a citizen.

So after defining NBC and indicating that there were NO DOUBTS about NBCs being citizens (ie. no doubt that Ms. Minor was a citizen), it contrasted, on the one hand, NBCs who are undoubtedly citizens, with those on the other hand, who "some authorities ... include as citizens", namely "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship", who may or may not be CITIZENS.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

First of all ...

I apologize for pulling that crap at the end of my last post.

Finally ...

This is not going anywhere so this will be my last post. I promise. My point has been that if you read anything and everything on this subject, you will come away with 5 conclusions.

1. It was never defined.
2. It is clear that there are really only two types of citizens; Naturalized or Natural Born. There is no other option.
3. Opinions are all over the place, but if you want the original intent the closest thing you are going to get is the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was passed by the first congress which consisted of many representatives to the Constitutional Convention.
4. The Supreme Court specifically states that this particular clause has never been addressed by the Supreme Court.
5. The constituion clearly states that only congress has authority over naturalization so defining this term is strictly congress's prerogative.

God Bless.

Congratulations

Congratulations, you are simply wrong on each and every one of your five points! Once again, you make bold statements that are totally unsupported by any legal citations or other supporting authority! Your lack of understanding of these issues is truly breathtaking. No matter what points I make or evidence I produce, you never respond to them, so I have no illusion that you will be in any way receptive to the following response, but for the record I will try one last time:

1. NBC WAS defined in Minor, as I pointed out in my previous comment, and a plain reading of the language makes that clear;

2. There is a type of citizenship obtained via the 14th Amendment, namely those "born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", that is neither "naturalized" nor NBC, since not all citizens born in the US are "natural born", some having either one or even no US citizen parents.

3. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was merely a statute and Congress cannot define, change or repeal the meaning of a constitutional provision; with this act, Congress was focused on the naturalization of CITIZENS, and was not concerned with Presidential eligibility or redefining or explaining NBC; this act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which replaced the NBC language with "native born citizen", correcting what was obviously a confusion between the two seemingly similar but clearly different terms in the 1790 Act.

4. As I have posted repeatedly, the NBC was "addressed" in the following US Supreme Court cases: The Venus (1814); Shanks v. Dupont (1830); Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857); Minor v. Happersett (1875); Wong Kim Ark (1898); Perkins v. Elg (1939). What more evidence do you want? What Supreme Court or other court cases do you cite for your amazing assertion that "The Supreme Court specifically states that this particular clause has never been addressed by the Supreme Court."

5. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization". But Congress has no power to define NBC, since NBC has nothing whatsover to do with naturalization; NBC was created by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution specifically for the Presidency and NBCs acquire their citizenship "naturally", ie. without the necessity for naturalization or other laws.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I promised I would not go any further on this ...

I have had my say.

I wish you well on your journey.

Call it a victory if you wish.

I will politely bow out.

God Bless.

Now that...

was well done man.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Can you explain to Mr. Nystrom ...

that I am not a bad guy.

And that the DP needs me.

Because, I think I am about to be banned again.

For the 6th or 7th or 8th time. I can't remember.

Thanks in advance. God Bless you ATruepatriot.

I have always respected you.

You bring a man a "pause".

Level headed. Calm. Peace. A born moderator.

I rarely respond to your comments, but I always read them and they give me "pause". They bring me back to perspective.

We all have our roles.

I have been thinking about this all day Rhino

The other night I was joking around about the old days when you had been banned and back so many times. I truly was joking around like I had so many times in the past about you going and coming.

I am now truly concerned that my comments on that thread the other night may have aided in bringing about your current situation man. It has been bothering the hell out of me that this may be a possibility.

I have been figuring out how to approach Mr Nystrom about this and not make him even more upset at you. I need closure on this myself if I did indeed aggravate the situation to cause action against you.

I feel terrible that I may have caused you more of an issue than it would have been. I do need to set it right and will do what I can my friend. Morning would be best man. Agreed?

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Whatever you think is best.

If I don't make it ...

I wish you well.

Sincerely,

Scott Ryan

I think so

Because I see he is not on right now or invisible, either way he doesn't want to be bothered right now. I want to catch him while he is on the board to talk to him about it. He seems to be more cheerful in the morning. All I can say is continue to be courteous man and we will still see you in the morning, lol. I apologize if I caused you more trouble than you would have actually received. I'm off to bed, Please take care and have a great evening Scott.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Not on you.

This is on Mr. Nystrom.

And me of course.

But I think you have the same effect on him as you do me.

And that is why I have reached out to you.

Regardless ...

The DP will not survive without me.

(Tongue in cheek of course)

Now I have bumped Mr. Law's thread once more than I care to.

Peace.

Hanlon's razor

Stormfront? That's an unjustified leap, really completely uncalled for.

The distinction between a sufficient condition (A implies B) and a definition (B if and only if A) is not something you can just assume everyone knows. A lot of people don't understand basic logic.

Yes. An unjustified leap.

My apologies and thank you.

Conclusion

This is what happens when you ask lawyers to become analytical. Find a better source.

Curious... What is it you disagree with that I said?

Or what particularly 'happened' when I became too analytical?

Why is a lawyer not a good source? Someone with no knowledge of the constitution or the law, would be better? Maybe you are stereo-typing lawyers.

Just curious if you disagree with my conclusions and analysis, if so why?

Do you not agree with me on what constitutes a natural born citizen?

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I agree.

Lawman doesn't understand why Cultures have defeated Imperialism forever.

It's as simple as that. American People are good, but have been deceived by the fake power of the printing press.

Lawman, either you stand for honest exchange of value for value, or you don't get it.

sorry if I missed a post you made elsewhere where you explained why you think we as Americans should defend Others including Israel when by ignoring our founding principles.

I'm always up for ideas and try to do so with respect.