On 6/12/14 08:53 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 6/11/14 12:48 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
What goes around, comes around...sort of.

Heard on the radio news this morning that Senator Cruz (R-Tex) gave up
his Canadian citizenship. Within a few minutes, all his cronies are
saying this is wonderful news and that Cruz can run for president
because he is now considered a "natural born citizen"

He can't. He needs to have been born in this country to run for
President.

One would think so. Other than that there may be a provision for someone
born to an employee of the government on service in a foreihn country. Not
sure about that.



I don't think so, Steve. The Constitution is pretty clear about the
qualifications to run.

Unfortunately, there's no convening authority to enforce it, unless
the Courts or the Congress grow a pair. So, there's a lot of sliding on
this point, recently.

On 6/12/14 11:18 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 6/11/14 12:48 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
What goes around, comes around...sort of.

Heard on the radio news this morning that Senator Cruz (R-Tex) gave up
his Canadian citizenship. Within a few minutes, all his cronies are
saying this is wonderful news and that Cruz can run for president
because he is now considered a "natural born citizen"

On 6/12/2014 9:50 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

He can't. He needs to have been born in this country to run for
President.

What goes around does indeed come around and now we are apparently, per
your post, back at square one. Does anyone have a *definitive* answer?



Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers.

On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:29:12 AM UTC-7, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers.
What do the Federalist Papers opine about the qualifications to be President? Was there unanimous agreement, or was this another controversial issue?

AFAIK, the US Constitution says "natural born citizne", and the US Supreme Court has not yet spoken ex cathedra on clarifying the definition.

On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:29:12 AM UTC-7, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers.

On 6/13/2014 12:17 PM, wrote:

What do the Federalist Papers opine about the qualifications to be
President? Was there unanimous agreement, or was this another
controversial issue?

AFAIK, the US Constitution says "natural born citizne", and the US
Supreme Court has not yet spoken ex cathedra on clarifying the
definition.


Exactly why I asked if anyone has a *definitive* answer.

On 6/13/2014 11:00 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:29:12 AM UTC-7, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers.

On 6/13/2014 12:17 PM, wrote:

What do the Federalist Papers opine about the qualifications to be
President? Was there unanimous agreement, or was this another
controversial issue?

AFAIK, the US Constitution says "natural born citizne", and the US
Supreme Court has not yet spoken ex cathedra on clarifying the
definition.


Exactly why I asked if anyone has a *definitive* answer.


http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11...tizen_defined/

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born
citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person
owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example),
they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to
defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the
founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to
establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s
citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.
This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard
said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue
of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations
are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not
make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under
Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s
citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States
and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are
declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every
human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents
not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of
your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th,
1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:

Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the
Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled
from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman
undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the
Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of
parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are
native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a
textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle
that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural
word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the
child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be
born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to
the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to
be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the
allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without
controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons
allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to
written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to
a new one.

This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone
else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to
be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president
shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United
States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security
against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being
exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of
foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded
against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations
have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of
character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate
policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without
the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of
the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once
threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this
sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us
all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was
designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington
warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a
variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an
imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest
exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the
former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter,
without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to
concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others,
which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by
unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by
exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the
parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote
themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the
interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with
popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of
obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable
zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition,
corruption, or infatuation.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the
President to have inherited his American citizenship through his
American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born
anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his
native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life
to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and
intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a
naturalized citizen.

Conclusion

Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon
locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no
extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On
the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law
and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize
citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a
natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of
nations rather than mere local recognition.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa,
confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to
subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and
that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United
States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children
born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign
Governments.”*

When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a
natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of
where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship
through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law
whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had
become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a
citizen father.

Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the
citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

* Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied
to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary
aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel,
visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was
prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who
desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and
had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state
per state law.

UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother:
Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their
children except in certain situations such as the father dying before
the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown

Google,,, wakingtimes.com Current media events hint at a alien invasion. Space aliens from outer space, that is. Of course that will Never happen for real. I do Believe in Worm Grunting though. Google,,, Mike Rowe Worm Grunting

On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:09:09 AM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11...tizen_defined/
Thanks, but I was expecting someone to cite chapter an verse from the original Federalist Papers circulated by the Founding Fathers before the adoption of the US Constitution (at least, that was the way I intertpreted Rock Rat's claimn about the Federalist Papers). Your link appears to be for a site espousing a particular current political agenda, even if it does have "Federalist" in its name.

On 6/13/2014 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:09:09 AM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11...tizen_defined/
Thanks, but I was expecting someone to cite chapter an verse from the original Federalist Papers circulated by the Founding Fathers before the adoption of the US Constitution (at least, that was the way I intertpreted Rock Rat's claimn about the Federalist Papers). Your link appears to be for a site espousing a particular current political agenda, even if it does have "Federalist" in its name.


It cites the Federalist papers.

Also:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/ironch...ynch-v-clarke/

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/the-constitution

On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:30:20 PM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
It cites the Federalist papers.
I must have skiimed over it too quickly, but I did not see any citation from the Fedeeralist Papers in any of your three links. The only one I spotted that might have been before 1789 was "Alexander Hamilton's draft of the Constitution", and it was not claimed to be part of the Federalist Papers. How about providing a direct citation like "Federalist Paper No. xx", page NN, chapter yy, paragraph qq, etc.?

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 6/12/14 08:53 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 6/11/14 12:48 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
What goes around, comes around...sort of.

Heard on the radio news this morning that Senator Cruz (R-Tex) gave up
his Canadian citizenship. Within a few minutes, all his cronies are
saying this is wonderful news and that Cruz can run for president
because he is now considered a "natural born citizen"

He can't. He needs to have been born in this country to run for
President.

One would think so. Other than that there may be a provision for someone
born to an employee of the government on service in a foreihn country. Not
sure about that.


I don't think so, Steve. The Constitution is pretty clear about the
qualifications to run.

Unfortunately, there's no convening authority to enforce it, unless
the Courts or the Congress grow a pair. So, there's a lot of sliding on
this point, recently.

There seems to be a lot of sliding on many things of late...