Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"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."
Since natural-born citizen is a qualification for becoming President of the United States, and born a citizen is written as a qualification for becoming President of the United States there is reason to say that "natural-born citizen" and "born a citizen" are indeed interchangeable.
That Hamilton's draft terminology was never adopted. "Born a citizen" was rejected. "Natural born citizen" was adopted.
"Born a citizen" does not equal "natural born citizen."
Not my logic. It's a Constitutional requirement: No one born a foreign citizen/subject is eligible for POTUS.
Historical FACTS matter...
Why yes, historical facts do matter.
And it's a historical fact that the Constitution has this to say on the qualifications for the office of the Presidency of the United States (Article II, Clause 5):
Quote:
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.
So, it's an historical fact that it doesn't say No one born a foreign citizen/subject is eligible for POTUS.
It only requires that one be a natural born citizen. Now, please cite the United States law that defines the concept 'natural born citizen' (and not one you conjured up to suit your needs).
You can't, because there currently exists no such definition. So again, by your own rationalization, no one alive today is legally a naturally born citizen; no one alive today is eligible for the office of the Presidency of the United States.
Not in my dreams. It's actually fully documented in the Federal record.
"Natural born" was REMOVED in the 1795 Naturalization Act, never to be seen again to this day.
A 2004 attempt (S. 2128) to reinstate "natural born" FAILED.
Cruz is ineligible.
It doesn't matter if it was removed. What matters is that the 1790 Act existed, it was written, it was passed by Congress, and how it was written, what words were used, who it was written by, completely refute your arguments about the intent and feelings of the Founding Fathers.
You keep repeating the same thing in different threads, but I believe you are mistaken. For one, you are ignoring, utterly, the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The bolded requirement is the problem. A child born in the US to a foreign citizen/subject parent whose country has legislated jus sanguinis citizenship is subject to the foreign country's jurisdiction.
Quote:
It does not make sense for you to ignore the 'or' in the sentence of the Constitution you keep citing. It clearly says "No person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States", and the 14th amendment clarifies what a 'citizen' is.
I'm not ignoring the "or." You can't cut the requirement short. It's...
"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..."
Do you need me to explain to you why the Constitutional Convention would have to insert that exception clause?
The bolded requirement is the problem. A child born in the US to a foreign citizen/subject parent whose country has legislated jus sanguinis citizenship is subject to the foreign country's jurisdiction.
Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with eligibility for the office of the Presidency. Except in the minds of those in the Birther movement.
Quote:
I'm not ignoring the "or." You can't cut the requirement short. It's...
"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..."
Do you need me to explain to you why the Constitutional Convention would have to insert that exception clause?
Because George Washington wasn't a citizen of the United States at birth.
And it's a historical fact that the Constitution has this to say on the qualifications for the office of the Presidency of the United States (Article II, Clause 5):
So, it's an historical fact that it doesn't say No one born a foreign citizen/subject is eligible for POTUS.
That's why we have to follow the historical timeline and documentation relating to the origin and inclusion of the "natural born citizen" requirement in the Constitution to ascertain its meaning...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
If you want to know the meaning of "natural born citizen" when it was drafted into the adopted Constitution, you have to follow the historical timeline and examine the historical documents related to such...
The Constitution's Presidential eligibility clause as originally presented by Alexander Hamilton in June 1787:
"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."
The eligibility clause as adopted in September 1787, and as it exists to this day in the Constitution:
"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"
Note the difference: 'born a citizen' does not equal 'natural born Citizen.'
The term was specifically changed after John Jay's July 1787 letter to George Washington to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or having foreign claims on their allegiance and service since birth from becoming President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
The meaning and intent of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution's Presidential eligibility requirement is that NO ONE born a foreign citizen/subject (and that includes those born dual citizens because they are born a foreign citizen/subject) is eligible for the office of POTUS and the US Commander in Chief.
That's the very straightforward, historically factual, and fully documented truth.
The interesting question is... why are so many of you loathe to accept the documented historical truth?
The bolded requirement is the problem. A child born in the US to a foreign citizen/subject parent whose country has legislated jus sanguinis citizenship is subject to the foreign country's jurisdiction.
I'm not ignoring the "or." You can't cut the requirement short. It's...
"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..."
Do you need me to explain to you why the Constitutional Convention would have to insert that exception clause?
Why, yes, please do.
Anyway, since Mr. Cruz was born to an American mother while she was abroad, many feel (although others disagree) that the child was not actually subject to Canada's jurisdiction.
From that Senate bill you keep mentioning (which the Senate apparently never voted on, perhaps because they thought it superficial), here is what Senator Nickles of Oklahoma had to say on the floor:
"This bill makes clear that a child born to American citizens abroad
is eligible to hold the office of the presidency. The term ``natural
born'' was used by the framers of the Constitution to reinforce their
wish that the president would feel loyalty and allegiance to the United
States. That the president would have a ``native feeling.'' Children
born to American citizens abroad, especially those born to members of
the American armed forces and foreign service, certainly have that
``native feeling.'' They are as patriotic as any American. Statutorily,
they are citizens from birth, raised by Americans with American values.
And they should have the same opportunities as children born on
American soil. They should not be denied the chance to seek the highest
office in our land because they happened to be born while their parents
were stationed or working abroad.
The Constitution also requires that the president have resided in the
United States for fourteen years. This provision shows us that the
framers believed that the president need not spend his whole life in
the United States. It is possible for a person to reside in another
country for a time and still be eligible to be President of the United
States. So it follows that an American child born abroad should be just
as eligible to be president just as any child born in the United States
that happens to reside abroad for a time. This bill makes it clear that
such a child is eligible to be president."
Note that Senator Nickles did not claim that a child so born abroad was NOT already eligible to be President, but since some had doubts, he wished for this law to be passed to remove all doubts.
Anyway, since Mr. Cruz was born to an American mother while she was abroad, many feel (although others disagree) that the child was not actually subject to Canada's jurisdiction.
In fact, he was. That's why he renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Quote:
From that Senate bill you keep mentioning (which the Senate apparently never voted on, perhaps because they thought it superficial), here is what Senator Nickles of Oklahoma had to say on the floor:
"This bill makes clear that a child born to American citizens abroad
is eligible to hold the office of the presidency. The term ``natural
born'' was used by the framers of the Constitution to reinforce their
wish that the president would feel loyalty and allegiance to the United
States. That the president would have a ``native feeling.'' Children
born to American citizens abroad, especially those born to members of
the American armed forces and foreign service, certainly have that
``native feeling.'' They are as patriotic as any American. Statutorily,
they are citizens from birth, raised by Americans with American values.
And they should have the same opportunities as children born on
American soil. They should not be denied the chance to seek the highest
office in our land because they happened to be born while their parents
were stationed or working abroad.
The Constitution also requires that the president have resided in the
United States for fourteen years. This provision shows us that the
framers believed that the president need not spend his whole life in
the United States. It is possible for a person to reside in another
country for a time and still be eligible to be President of the United
States. So it follows that an American child born abroad should be just
as eligible to be president just as any child born in the United States
that happens to reside abroad for a time. This bill makes it clear that
such a child is eligible to be president."
Note that Senator Nickles did not claim that a child so born abroad was NOT already eligible to be President, but since some had doubts, he wished for this law to be passed to remove all doubts.
And it DIDN'T pass. Hence, MANY, even in Congress, have doubts.
In fact, he was. That's why he renounced his Canadian citizenship.
And it DIDN'T pass. Hence, MANY, even in Congress, have doubts.
Well, it did not come to a vote, which is a difference. Most bills that are introduced are not, ultimately, voted on.
Personally, I think the fact that Rafael Edward Cruz discovered that he had citizenship rights in Canada that he had to renounce is a point against his eligibility. Yet, then again, he did renounce it, and so has allegiance to only one country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
