13 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.

Mr. Lawman

Do you know, and bow to the people that have given you your 'credentials'?

Have you researched where Their Authority came from to do so?

This is an important question. I hope you consider it and I look forward to your reply.


Bow to Whom?

I do not bow to anyone but the Supreme Judge of the universe, the L-rd G-d Himself! The decisions of the US Supreme Court are sometimes wrong and I took an oath of office to support and defend the US Constitution, not necessarily the decisions of the US Supreme Court or any other Court. That said, to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court, particularly when it has ruled repeatedly on the definition of "natural born citizen", though its meaning is not immediately self-evident or clear to most of us and requires study and research to uncover, and to bring in a variety of other sources and claim confusion and uncertainty when none exist as far as the Court is concerned, is dishonest and misleading. If anyone disagrees with the Court's rulings, fine: say so! And articulate why they feel the Court is wrong, and perhaps why it ought to be overruled, either by decision of the Court itself, or by amendment of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution. But to cast aside the Court's decisions in this matter as if they are of no importance and binding on no one, is ridiculous.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

That is a complete fabrication.

It makes no such conclusion.

It investigated other options as well and found evidence that it could also refer to born abroad to a father that is a citizen.

It clearly mentions the Naturalization Act of 1790 and it uses it becuase the writers of the constitution also enacted this act.

Furthermore, you keep citing these Supreme Court Cases that have nothing to do with citizenship. Read the opinions.

You claim to be a Lawmanjed and I am going to assume that you are a police officer because you certainly are not an attorney.

My whole "original intent" of my first rebuttal to your OP was to insert a little uncertainty into the definition of Natural Born and it appear I have.

Now you are attempting to change the target.

Just admit that it is not as cut and dry as you originally thought.

God Bless.

Insert a little uncertainty?

Your stated intent "was to insert a little uncertainty into the definition of Natural Born and it appear I have." This is revealing. You and I apparently have different goals. I seek clarity and certainty in the law, and you seek uncertainty and confusion. That explains why you are always attacking and never clarifying. Let me quess - you don't have a definition of "natural born citizen" because there is none, right? But I don't want to put words in your mouth. If you have a definition of NBC, let's hear it now!

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Well ...

It would seem to me that a reasonable definition would be ...

If you are not naturalized and you are a citizen, then you are Natural Born.

If you are a citizen at birth then you are Natural Born.

It is pretty simple.

I think that was also the original intent it is just that the rules requiring naturalization were different back then.

Senator Cruz was a citizen at birth and therefore he is natural born.

Same with McCain.

Obama, more than likely assuming one of his parents was still a citizen at the time of his birth or if he was born in Hawaii.

God Bless.

Your definition of NBC

Thank you for your response. You claim "It would seem to me that a reasonable definition would be ... If you are not naturalized and you are a citizen, then you are Natural Born. If you are a citizen at birth then you are Natural Born. It is pretty simple." There are several problems with your definition:

1) As I have noted in my post and in numerous comments, the Supreme Court has defined natural born citizen (NBC) in Minor v. Happersett as those born in a country to citizen parents, citing Vattel's definition in his treatise "The Law of Nations" and several earlier decisions of its own; subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg., have cited the Minor case as precedent for its NBC definition, which definition is binding on all US Courts and has never been overruled. Your definition dismisses or ignores the US Supreme Court's definition in its repeated decisions regarding NBC.

2) The framers of the Constitution could easily have inserted language into Article II, Section I, Clause 5 providing for those who are "non-naturalized citizens" or for those who are "citizens at birth" to be eligible for President (as you claim they are), but they did not, instead using the term NBC.

3) Your definition permits anyone "born a citizen" to be President. So children born of one or even two foreign (even illegal alien) parents, born with dual or even triple citizenship and allegiance to one or two nations other than the US, are eligible for President as well. How is this reasonable? Do you or anyone else seriously think the founders adopted NBC when it could possibly include such situations? They had just fought the British in the Revolutionary War. Do you think they would allow for future Presidents to be born to British (or other) foreign fathers?

4) Your definition also permits those NOT born on US soil, since under various US statutes not all citizens are required to be born on US soil.

So your definition simply trashes NBC as defined by Vattel, the Supreme Court and numerous other sources, and replaces it with a meaningless non-standard that merely eliminates "naturalized" citizens and no other class from the NBC class. According to you, every other type of citizen is eligible to be President, whether born on US soil or not, whether having two US citizens parents, one US and one foreign parent, or two foreign (even illegal alien) parents.

How your definition serves any coherent purpose is difficult to understand. Even if the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution were smoking some serious hemp, it is impossible to believe they would have come up with something as crazy as this. They were clearly concerned about the undivided loyalty and allegiance of future presidents and wanted to reduce the likelihood of foreign influence on the presidency.

Regarding your definition, you claim "It is pretty simple". Sounds pretty complicated and confusing to me. You want simple? Try NBC, which serves simplicity by elegantly combining the elements of the law of the soil (birth on US soil) with the law of the blood (birth to citizen parents), thereby serving the purposes of undivided loyalty and allegiance for American presidents. Hey, maybe the founders knew what they were doing after all. And by the way, NBC is the type of citizenship that most of us already have, having been born in this country to American parents. Why shouldn't the highest office in the land require that type of citizenship that most of us 2nd and later generation citizens already have?

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

First of all ...

the Supreme Court did not define NBC. You keep saying that. This clause has never been litigated to the Supreme Court. The court would never answer this question. It would never answer a political question. The Supreme Court from time to time does use current law to define terms in their opinions, but opinions are not law. They decide cases on a case by case basis. Got it? Good.

MvH was a sufferage case. They determined that she was a citizen, but still didn't have the right to vote. That was it. Period.

Secondly, the reason why the term was probably used in the first place was because of the new country thing. Hamilton used 5 words to explain the exception. Jay used three. They used the more efficient language. It should have been called the William Franklin exception because that is exactly who they were thinking of when they agreed to put it into the constitution.

Thirdly, it was not a term of art at the time, it became a "possible" term of art once the constitution was written because it was the first time it was used in law and possibly the first time used ever.

And yes to your 4th and 5th point. If the electorate determines to elect a president that was a citizen at the time of their birth and did not require naturalization, then they are legit in my mind.

A naturalized citizen would require an amendment. I will give you that. Even though I think that clause as out lived its usefullness.

The Obama issue was always very interesting especially when it wasn't clear that Obama was even a citizen.

But even if there was substantial evidence that Obama was never and is not, today, a citizen, what exactly do you think will happen?

The Supreme Court would not touch that with a ten foot pole. It is an elected official and therefore a political question. It would require impeachment, but then it would have to be determined that this in and of itself would constitute a high crime which I don't think it does. It would have to be determined that Obama intentionally concealed this fact. Additionally, what would make it even more interesting is whether you can impeach him since he is not legit in the first place. It goes round and round. But according to the constitution, the Supreme court has no power to determine the legitimacy of a president. If the process were to occur it would have to be performed by the legislature in some sort of form resembling impeachment with possibly the Chief Justice presiding over the hearings. But in all honesty it will never happen and it can only happen in the court of public opinion in the form of an election.

Even if Obama should not have been eligible to run, who determines such a question?

The public. That's who.

The constitution is a contract between the government and the governed. It is up to the people to not elect him to office.

Another interesting issue is whether or not such a person is eligible to run for the office. It might be unconstitutional to hold the office, but it doesn't say you can't run for the office.

Let's say that Obama lost to Clinton in the primary and it was really close and it was lost because Clinton provided proof that Obama was not even a citizen. Obama got so pissed that we wanted to stick it to her so he ran third party, drawing good portion of votes away from Clinton and McCain won by 3 or 4 electorial votes.

Would that be O.K. even if Obama was clearly not a citizen? He never held the office. He simply ran to elect McCain or to defeat Clinton.

Do you see how convoluted it can become?

The most reasonable definition is the one the public is going to buy and is going to hold the candidates accountable. That can only be the definition that I provided.

A citizen at birth is Natural Born. A citizen that was not naturalized is therefore Natural Born.

Now, according to the constitution, congress has the powers of naturalization. So if congress were to impose new naturalization rules it might change things a bit, but that would not be a constitutional question. That would be a political question as well.

God Bless.

You state that "MvH was a

You state that "MvH was a sufferage case. They determined that she was a citizen, but still didn't have the right to vote. That was it. Period." Yes, it was a sufferage case. The Court decided that Ms. Minor, though a US citizen, was not entitled to vote under the US Constitution because the US Constitution did not grant voting rights to anyone, men or women; voting rights were determined by state law. But in order to reach that decision, they first had to determined that she was in fact a US citizen before they could move on to the voting issue.

Yes, courts "decide cases on a case by case basis". But they need an actual case in controversy, in this case, an actual US citizen, in order to reach the voting issue. The Court could not "assume" that Minor was a citizen or render an advisory opinion; they needed to make a finding of citizenship based on the evidence presented to them from the lower courts. You say "This clause has never been litigated to the Supreme Court." But the NBC clause needn't be litigated directly if its meaning can be decided by the Court as a finding of law. Courts make findings of fact AND law all the time. Usually a Court will cite prior court rulings and adopt them as law, ie. following precedent or 'stare decisis', standing on the decision of earlier Court rulings, particularly those of the Supreme Court, which the Minor court did.

The key to understanding Minor as it relates to NBC is that the Court in Minor needed to find that Minor was a citizen. She wasn't running for President or Vice President, so they didn't need to find she was a NBC for that purpose. However, since it so happened that she was a NBC, because she was born in the US to two US citizen parents, they were were able to deduce that of course she was a citizen, without having to delve into the daunting task of defining citizenship in general, particularly in light of the recently adopted 14th Amendment.

The Court's finding that Minor was an NBC was crucial to their finding of her citizenship. Therefore the definition of NBC that it adopted from several of its earlier cases was a finding of law that is binding law and precedent for later US Courts. Though it may be correct that they did not "define" NBC in the sense that they "invented" the term, any more than Courts ever invent terms, they certainly adopted its definition as law. And contrary to your assertion that "The Supreme Court from time to time does use current law to define terms in their opinions, but opinions are not law", I assure you that Supreme Court opinions regarding findings of law are very definitely law. What law school did you graduate from?

You also claim that "The court would never answer this question. It would never answer a political question." You may be correct that in the foreseable future, for political reasons, the Court will avoid opining on whether Obama or anyone else running for President is a NBC. But when it comes to the interpretation of a statute or a constitutional provision, the Courts have a duty to interpret the same without regard to political considerations, when they have jurisdiction. Courts do it all the time. But their failure to undertake any case brought before them when they properly have jurisdiction amounts to "treason to the Constitution" according to Chief Justice John Marshall, who opined: "We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution." Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheaton) 264, 387 (1821).

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

You are going down too far the rabbit hole and that is your ...


There was alot that was incorrect in that post but I will leave you with four points.

1. Without going too deep. To some extent you are correct. Within an opinion there is a principle. The principle becomes law (given a set of facts and findings). The rest of the opinion is simply a set of facts and findings. The facts are very specific to the case. The findings can be general, but are not binding beyond the case. The court cannot create laws. Yes, there was a finding about the definition of a NBC, but it did not become the law of the land, at least not because it was a finding in a Supreme Court case. The principle was on the Privileges and Immunities afforded under the Equal Protection clause. There are no less than 6 Supreme Court decisions that have findings that specifically stated that a citizen is either naturalized or natural born in the opinion. No other option. Those findings are not law, but by your argument they carry just as much weight as MvH. In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically stated that only congress can regulate the status of citizenship. There are also several cases that establish the "Political Question Doctrine" and still more that imply that the court is not institutionally competent in answering such a question. This particular clause in the constitution has never been addressed by the Supreme Court and it isn't because of the lack of trying. The court, thru its rules have intentionally avoided the question. So let's stay away from your Supreme court argument. You can't win that one.

2. If you feel so strongly about your definition, then work like a dog to get congress to agree with you. They count the electorial votes and there have been times when they have refused to count certain votes. That may be the only way of finding out the true meaning of NBC through a Supreme Court decision because I gaurantee you the Supreme Court will hear that case.

3. You wanted the original intent of that specific clause. That clause predates MvH. It predates Marbury V Madison which established the principle of judicial review so using MvH to embolden your claim of original intent is a circular argument. And it predates any other known use of the term NBC.

4. It is a vague term that could be defined in anyway that congress wishes. The constitution specifically states congress has authority over naturalization and if that is the case, then they can create a law that requires all persons not born on American soil to be naturalized. They could wave their magic wand and simply declare all current citizens not born on this soil are "hereby naturalize" and put an end to the question in your favor.

God Bless.

As a final thought, MvH did not "explore" the definition of NBC since Minor was born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents.

"For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." MvH


John McCain is Panamanian

John McCain is not a Natural Born Citizen either. He was born in a Panamanian hospital, (which I understand was not even in the official American zone let alone on a US military base), whilst his father was a serving naval officer in the area.
A few years after his birth the law was changed to recognise such people as having automatic citizenship. So whilst a younger man, or woman would be regarded as a natural born citizen, John McCain most certainly can not.
It is not logical to say that John McCain is a natural born citizen by virtue of a law that was passed when he was three or five years old.

Pro-Life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-worker, pro Ron Paul

I heard Mitt Romney was born

I heard Mitt Romney was born in Mexico! I don't think we even allow Americans (natural born one any way) to even contend for the office any more!

george romney was born in

george romney was born in Mexico, Mitt was born in Michigan. Both parents were citizens when he was born.

It is clear

that NBC indicates a child who was born to both citizen parents of the country and who is NOT under any other jurisdiction except of that the United States (according to Vattel, the Laws of the Nations).

So in this case, it is possible for the person to be born outside of the US, but to both US citizens mother and father, as long as he or she is not under the jurisdiction of any other sovereign nation.

It is clear but you are partly wrong

It is clear but you are partly wrong when you claim that birth "outside of the US" is OK for 'natural born' citizenship. It is NOT, as Vattel states that NBCs are those born in the country to citizen parents. So BOTH US citizen mother and father AND birth on US soil are required. Read the 1875 Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, also Supreme Court cases Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg, which cite Minor's definition of NBC.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

You are picking and choosing.

First you wanted original intent.

Now you are citing cases in the 20th century.

And you are incorrectly citing them.

I get it. This issue is important to you.

But the reality is, as I pointed out below, the phrase is not clearly defined. It never was clearly defined. There is age appropriate sources that vary. AND IT WASN'T A "TERM OF ART".

35 of the 55 delegates to the ConCon were members of the first congress and they defined natural born citizen as also being born abroad to a father that is a citizen.

We get it. You get it. I get it.

You continue to be 100% certain that there was only a single meaning to a "term of art", when the constitution was written.

The reality is that this is being dishonest. And you know it.

God Bless.

Do you want a definition of NBC or do you want if forever vague?

To define natural born citizen (NBC) let's try this logic:
1) NBC is a special type of citizen distinct from all others;
2) The founders and ratifiers wanted NBC for presidents to minimize
foreign influence and divided loyalties;
3) NBC can only be acquired at birth;
4) NBC either requires birth on US soil or it doesn't;
5) NBC requires one of the following:
a) two US citizen parents;
b) one US citizen parent;
c) no US citizen parent.
Can we agree on the above? If so, then NBC must have one (or possibly more) of the following meanings:
1) Born on foreign soil to no US citizen parent;
2) Born on foreign soil to one US citizen parent;
3) Born on foreign soil to two US citizen parents.
4) Born on US soil to no US citizen parent;
5) Born on US soil to one US citizen parent;
6) Born on US soil to two US citizen parents.
In order to minimize foreign influence and divided loyalties, we must eliminate 1), 2), 4) & 5), all of which allow for a child to be raised from birth by one or two foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction, allegiance and citizenship of one or two foreign powers. We are then left with 3) and 6).
Any child born on foreign soil is subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign nation and has dual citizenship at birth, creating the possibility of divided loyalties. That eliminates 3) and leaves us with 6), born on US soil to two US citizen parents, as the only option for NBC. Furthermore, NBC is the only form of citizenship acquired 'naturally' at birth, without the need for special legislation, since the evidence of undivided citizenship and allegiance are self evident. A child born in the US to US citizen parents cannot possibly be a citizen of any other nation and his identity, allegiance and loyalties from birth are clearly to the US alone.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Now you are attempting to do the exact ....

same thing that I did and you claimed I had no business doing.

Personally determining the constitutionality of a political question.

You are entitled to this, just as much as I am.

God Bless.

Why is the Venus not mentioned here?

Chief Justice Marshall
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'


John Jay pointed this out to Washington so it is apparent this is the meaning the Framers adopted. Those who argue against this are just examples of those trying to pervert law for their own agenda.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Yes, the Supreme Court in its

Yes, the Supreme Court in its 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision cited its 1814 case, The Venus, for the definition of 'natural born' citizenship. I did not quote it in my rather lengthly post in part because its definition of NBC in The Venus was 'dicta', ie. comment not necessary for its decision, and therefore, though useful and persuasive, was not "law" that became technically binding on subsequent Courts. Minor's finding that Ms. Minor was an NBC was crucial to determining that she was therefore a "citizen", which it needed to determine in order to decide whether under the US Constitution her status as a citizen entitled her to vote. They decided it did not, because voting was determined by the states, not by the US Constitution, which did not grant voing rights to anyone, male or female.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Our Constitution is now our corporate mission statement.

we are governed by Admiralty Law and English common law.

if people cannot even define the difference between a Democracy, and a Republic. how on earth are you going to talk with them about the Rule of law?
our Rule of law is unique in that it was designed to restrain both the people and the collective. (government)

our founders understood that it is the excesses of both the people AND the Government that create problems. this is why they created a republic to address both problems.

it is not a "dead letter" yet....

Where in either the DoI and Constitution

are the people restrained? The DoI states our rights are ensured and unalienable. The Constitution restrains the government. Neither document restrains me.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

The Bill of Rights. spells it out.

the problem with Democracy, is that if you allow the people to vote on anything, they will.
you are correct that our version of the rule of law. only applies to the federal government.
these restrictions, applied at the federal level. are extended to the state level.
each state can make its own rules. but it cannot be a Democracy.
it is in this manner that the people are restricted.

pretty smart huh?

I don't care about whether or

I don't care about whether or not someone is a natural born citizen. Many immigrants love our country more than the average american. they know the harsh realities of living else where.

The real problem with dual-citizens in office is that they are not forced to prove they completely renounce all other citizenship.

Our government is full of dual israeli/american citizens who have undeniable conflicts of interests.

Thats the real problem.

The Rule of Law matters

and you should care that laws are being broken. It's because so many share your apathy that our country has been brought to ruin.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I Don't Care Either

I don't care about speed limits on the highways, so I will go as fast as I want, when I want. I don't care about property lines or no-trespassing signs, so I will go where and take what and when I want, night of day; that could be your house or car or property, or you, your dog or your family. So what? Who cares? I don't!
I don't care about drinking or driving laws, either. If an 8 year old wants to drive a car or truck on the highway, who cares? I don't!
If he wants to drink a beer or a bottle of wine, at home or behind the wheel, who cares? I don't! If 12 year olds want to vote in elecions for President or school board members, who cares? If non-citizens or illegal aliens want to vote in elections or run for office in this country, why not? Who cares? If foreigners of illegal aliens want to run for Congress or the Senate, who cares? I don't!

If a young man, born who-knows-where, fathered by a Muslim foreigner and raised by an atheist mother and grandparents, adopted by and raised by another Muslim foreigner in a Muslim country, mentored by a Communist black supremist, educated in the US with funds earmarked for foreign students, and raised up in a black supremist church, runs for President without a valid US birth certificate or evidence of a US citizen father, and virtualy all of his birth, health, travel and education records sealed or destroyed, I don't care? What difference does it make? Who cares about the rule of law? Or the Constitution? It's all about feelings?

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

What a bunch of logical

What a bunch of logical fallacies and assumptions you've made there "Lawmanjed". I am in no way promoting illegal immigrates running for any kind of political office in any way. My point is where they were born doesn't matter. Who they are, how they got here, and their reputation is what they should be judged on.

If Obama wasn't president, who would be? JOHN MCCAIN? MITT ROMNEY? They are all equally shitty scumbag-tier people, where they were born doesn't matter in the least. Their intentions and their record are what matter.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of good, honest people out there who weren't born in America. And plenty of scumbags born and raised here their whole lives.

If you believe where you were

If you believe where you were born should not matter, work to change the law. Don't ignore the law.

"My point is where they were born doesn't matter"

are you REALLY that dense?
or do you NOT understand the subject matter and the context thereof?

"Who they are, how they got here, and their reputation is what they should be judged on"

are you this girl?

Racist Republicans

...think Cruz can get the Hispanic vote for them. LoL

A natural born citizen was tough to define even ...

when the constitution was written.

Van Buren was the first president born a citizen.

If it is an issue that you think is important then thank you for putting it out there. At least it will become apart of the market place idea prior to any election process.

Who is suppose to determine what is constitutional and what is not?

The Supreme Court? They rarely decide political questions.

The answer is us. The voting public. The voting public determines the constitutionality of a political question.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States"

Barry Goldwater was a natural born citizen of a US territory, not of the United States. Should he have been eligible.

Originally, this was intended to prevent the British Empire or some other European Empire from subverting the constitution by using the political process.

What if a natural born citizen relinguished his citizenship and became a German citizen during the Nazi era because he loved Hitler. Hitler asked him to go back and reside in the states for 14 years and then run for president while never regaining his U.S. citizenship? According to the constitution, this person would be eligible. He was a natural born citizen. The constitution is silent about whether the person has to be a current citizen. It says Natural Born OR a Citizen of the United States. It does not say AND. I agree with you that words do matter and there is an OR, not an AND in that sentence. The commas in that clause make it ambiguious at best. We typically understand what it means and the purpose of it, but lexical clarity it isn't.

Do you see the problems?

The voting public will decide.

Thank you for bringing the point up and making it part of the dialogue.

I don't think it is that important and as a party to this great contract I can decide the constitutionality of political questions in the same manner as you.

God Bless.