Newsletter subscribe

Elections, Features, Politics, Top Stories

Yes, Ted Cruz IS eligible to serve as president

Posted: August 27, 2013 at 7:45 am   /   by

As the American political right begins to set its sights on the 2016 presidential election, a bit of a kerfuffle has persisted over the eligibility of Ted Cruz, should he decide to seek the Republican nomination.  Most confusing for some may be the persistent voices on the right who insist Cruz is ineligible.  While I find it incredibly bizarre that people who are staunchly on the right would be spending so much energy trying to disqualify one of strongest, most conservative political leaders our side can field, I can assure you that however well-intentioned their views may be, they are mistaken in their understanding of Cruz’s eligibility.

Let us see if we can walk through this, one piece at a time.

First, let’s take a quick look at the law itself.  The qualifications for serving as president are laid out in the Constitution, which among other things says:

“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…”

So, natural born citizen—check.  This is the part for which it is claimed Cruz doesn’t qualify, but what exactly is a “natural born citizen”?  Despite the great amount of debate, there truly is one and only one legally controlling authority, and that is U.S. Code law and, of course, its interpretation.

This matter is, or ought to be, largely outside debate. The Constitution defined our government, and the boundaries and constraints under which it would operate. However, the Founders understood that a body of code law would have to be created within the Constitution’s framework, and they gave the power to create laws to Congress. The Constitution is a short, simple document, and rightly so. It is up to Congress to create laws that faithfully represent the intent of the Constitution.

In other words, the Framers didn’t spell out a definition for “natural born citizen” because it was deliberately left to Congress to determine. Indeed, a faithful interpretation of the Constitution—a document revered by us conservatives—must include recognition that this power was granted to Congress.  The legal definition of a “natural born citizen,” a.k.a. a “citizen at birth,” can be found in section 1401, Subchapter III of the U.S. Code.

Now, let us look at how this applies to Ted Cruz, and see if we can’t put this question to bed.

Senator Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, which of course is in Canada.  The senator’s father, Rafael Cruz, is from Cuba, and has quite an interesting story himself, but was not a citizen at the time of his son’s birth.  His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, however, was a citizen, having been born and raised in Delaware.  Eleanor  attended Rice university in Texas, where she also worked for Shell Oil Company as a programmer after graduating.

This brings us to subsection (d) of section 1401 of the previously mentioned U.S. Code, which in defining those who are legally citizens at birth, reads:

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (emphasis mine)

This is the aspects of the U.S. code which pertains to Senator Cruz.

a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions

Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States

His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware.

who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person

His mother was born, raised, and lived in the United States. She was thus “physically present in the United States” for far more that the required “continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person.”

and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States

His father was a U.S. national, but not a citizen. He was married to Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, a U.S. citizen, thus making him a national according to the law.

 

Ted Cruz fits all the requirements established in Section 1401, Subchapter III of  U.S. Code for being a citizen.

There are a number of important things to understand here.

First, and most essential—the only controlling authority on this question is U.S. law.  Skeptics have put forth the belief that 18th century common law or quotes from the Founders have authority over this question. They do not. While we revere both the wisdom of our predecessors (handed down through human institutions such as tradition and common law) and the brilliance and intent of our Founders, neither of these have any legal authority over the legal definition of “natural born citizen.” That authority is found in the law alone.

nra leadership forumAnd indeed, it bears repeating—the Founders themselves vested the authority to create these laws, and to create legal definitions of terminology, with Congress. If we are to respect the Framers of the Constitution, that is part of what we must respect. If we disagree with the current legal definition of the term, the solution is not to pretend that a different controlling authority exists, the solution is to challenge the law in court or to petition our elected representatives to change the law.

Second, there is no distinction between the terms natural born citizen” and citizen at birth.”  Legally speaking, both terms mean exactly the same thing.  In fact, in the United States, there are only two legally recognized classifications of citizen: Citizen at Birth and Naturalized Citizen.  This actually gives us a very easy way to gauge if someone is qualified to serve as President: If they went through a naturalization ceremony to obtain citizenship, they are not so qualified.  If, on the other hand, they are a citizen, and never had to be naturalized, as is the case with Senator Cruz, they are eligible.  From a legal perspective, it really is that simple.

It can be fascinating looking into the etymology of the phrase natural born citizen, but the historical meanings of a particular phrase are not necessarily the same as, and should not be confused with, its legally defined meaning.  The only meaning that carries any legal weight is the one defined in the U.S. Code. 

I recognize and respect that passions run high on this subject. But I assure you, you can take this analysis to the bank. And if you are a Ted Cruz fan, then take heart—he really is eligible to run for, and serve as, president!

 


 

Update:

Any time I write an article involving presidential eligibility and the Natural Born clause of Article II, a number of standard objections seem to pop up. The claims take a variety of forms, but they usually involve the assertion that when it comes to interpreting and clarifying this particular clause in the Constitution, some other source of authority has primacy over the U.S. Code.  There there tends to be a recurring set of objections.  I will try to deal with the most common of them here.

1.      The Founders said Natural Born Citizen, and the U.S. Code says Citizen at Birth, which mean two completely different things.  Therefore the U.S. Code is trumped by the Constitution

Based on United States’ law, the  terms Natural Born Citizen and Citizen at Birth are synonymous with each other.  Those who claim otherwise need to come up with some authoritative case law clearly distinguishing between the two terms. (Note: The assertion that this is done in Supreme Court cases is dealt with below.) The idea that NBC and CaB are materially different from each other is similar to claiming the words dog” and “domestic canine” mean different things. They both refer to the same thing: citizenship other than that which comes from naturalization.

In a paper written by the Congressional Research Service, the two terms are explained as well as I have ever seen:

“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.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.”  

Think of it this way: Both terms are meant to distinguish a citizen born subject to the laws, privileges, and responsibilities of a particular state or government from a person who must acquire citizenship through an affirmative act of his own.  While there are no writings by the Founders providing a single legal definition of natural born citizen, there are several making clear their intent was to ensure against some individual with loyalties to another king or country from scheming or buying his way into the presidency.  Even if someone manages to present evidence of some minutiae distinguishing the separate meanings of NBC and CaB, I have yet to hear anyone explain how it that makes a critical difference in this clearly expressed intent. Which brings us to . . .

 

2.      Title 8 of the U.S. Code carries no weight—the only thing that is important is the intent of the founders, and what they thought “Natural Born Citizen” means.

This is what I refer to as the “Common Law” argument; essentially, it says that the common-law meaning of the term natural born citizen is the only thing that really matters.  After all, it is well established that much of the Constitution was undergirded by the Founders’ understanding of English Common law.  Unfortunately, the term Natural Born Citizen does not have a fixed, singular meaning, even in the context of common law, but fortunately we do have William Blackstone, who is accepted as a principle authority on the topic.

Blackstone dealt with subjects rather than citizens, as Americans began calling themselves after gaining independence, and Blackstone defined Natural-born Subjects as those “born within the dominions of the crown of England.”  Blackstone further held that children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad are always held to be natural subjects.  In other words, though such children were born outside English soil, they still retained all the status attached to any other child born within England.  Finally, Blackstone also notes that “..more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes.”  If this sounds familiar, that is because the verbiage of sub-section (d) of section 1401 cited above is based on this same, common-law principle.

Some assert that because this common law principle, as stated by Blackstone and some of the Founders, refers to “fathers,” that Ted Cruz cannot be considered a citizen because it was his mother, not his father, who was the U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. But that is where the U.S. code law enters in. Our laws are informed by common law, but they go on to clarify it for purposes of more precise adjudication of the law. That is why sub-section (d) of section 1401 clarifies the common law version that refers to fathers with a legal version that refers to parents.

 

3.      Case law – I have seen a number of court cases raised as examples which somehow prove some distinct meaning for natural born citizen.  Unfortunately, I fear that many (if not most) of the people who cite these cases have not taken the time to actually read them.  Here are a few I often see cited, along with a short synopsis of what they really are about:

Minor v. Happersett – This was a suffrage era case that dealt with Missouri’s state law prohibiting women’s voting rights.  It obliquely references the 14th Amendment, but says absolutely nothing that could be even remotely construed as a “definition” of “natural born citizen” or how it might be distinct from “citizen at birth.”  The principle finding in this case is that citizenship does not confer a right to vote.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark – This case affirms the principle of Jus Soli, or citizenship at birth, established in the 14thAmendment.  Most importantly, it established the interpretation of the phrase “..subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as used in that amendment, which principle has remained unchallenged since.  The case does not however address or deal with the meaning or definition of natural born citizen beyond this narrow focus, nor does it distinguish that term from citizen at birth.

The Venus –  This oddly-named case (Venus was the name of a merchant ship seized by a Privateer, on behalf of the U.S. Government during the War of 1812) from 1814 is actually a property dispute dealing with the disposition of war prizes seized by the United States.  The subject of citizenship is tangential at best, and has to do with the government’s arguments over disposition of the property claimed by the plaintiffs.  The case does not address citizenship, either natural-born or naturalized, in any way useful to the debate over the meaning of natural born citizen, or any distinction between that and citizen at birth.  Its principle significance was in refining the laws of property seizure during war.

Shanks v. DuPont – This case is actually yet another property dispute, and does not deal in any material way with questions about natural born citizenship.  In a nutshell, two sisters inherited property in South Carolina upon the death of their father.   Both daughters were legally considered citizens by birth, but one married a British officer during the War for Independence and left with him to live out the remainder of her life in England.  The dispute was between the children of these two sisters, and was based on the claim that since the British had invaded and occupied parts of South Carolina for a time, including the property in question, this somehow caused the sister who left for England to forfeit her citizenship.  The court disagreed.

Perkins v. Elg – This case involved a young girl, born on U.S. soil to Swedish parents (father was naturalized) who returned with her to Sweden a short time after her birth, where they reclaimed their citizenship of that country.  The girl returned to the U.S. after her 21st birthday, and her citizenship claim was upheld by the SCOTUS.  This case again deals with the principle of Jus Soli, and once again does not address any distinction between natural born citizen and citizen at birth, nor does address any of the claims or controversies about presidential qualifications.

You are certainly welcome to read them for yourselves, but in fact none of these commonly cited cases has any bearing, or even says anything relevant about Article II of the Constitution, nor do they contradict Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code.

 

4.      but according to Section 1401, Cruz’s mother had to be a government official, or a member of the armed forces in order for him to be a citizen.

This objection is based on subsection (g) of the referenced code, and is based on a misreading of that subsection.  What the code is actually saying is, for children born outside the U.S. and its territories, where one parent is a citizen and the other is an alien, (as opposed to a U.S. National, as stated in subsection (d) of the same code) the citizen parent must have been present in the U.S. (or it’s territories) for no less than five years, and any military service or time spent overseas as an employee of the U.S. counts toward that five year requirement.  This subsection does not affect Senator Cruz, because his father was still a U.S. National, even though he was not a citizen.  And even if it did apply, since his mother had already spent her whole life living within the United States before moving to Calgary, she more than met the requirement, even without having to get credit for time in U.S. service.

 

Quite often, objections I encounter are based on a misreading of legal language. In other words, the objector is citing code or case law, but (s)he is misinterpreting the meaning of the words. I compliment anyone who is attempting to read the law itself, as the law is the authoritative source for these matters. However, I would ask most earnestly—read it slowly and carefully. Legal language often involves long sentences with multiple clauses. It helps to try to look for the primary subject of each sentence, and the main verb, to get the meaning. Often, it helps to temporarily ignore all the non-restrictive clauses in between.

I’m not a lawyer, and you don’t need to be one in order to understand legal language (though it probably helps). We, the People, can do this. But we have to look to the law as the authoritative source. I guarantee that if this is ever adjudicated in Congress or the courts, that is what they will do.

Greg Conterio

Gregory Conterio grew-up in the middle of the cornfields of central Illinois, spent 12 years living in the People’s Republic of Los Angeles, and another 15 in Miami, Florida, giving him a first-hand perspective on the rich variability of American culture.  Although formally educated in zoology, he saw opportunity in the then emerging Information technology field 25 years ago, and has remained there ever since, although he denies being an early pioneer in the now fashionable trend of pursuing useless college degrees.  Having an entrepreneurial background, Gregory has long been a staunch advocate of free markets and minimal government intrusion into our lives.  He currently runs a small IT consulting firm based in South Florida, where he resides with his wife of 25 years, his daughter, three Whippets, and an unknown but growing number of chickens, having discovered belatedly the rural lifestyle is not so bad after all.

Comments

  1. dleeper47 says:

    Excellent post, Greg — the best I’ve seen on this topic. And of course, I like the conclusion(!).
    By the way, doesn’t this also close the case on Barack Obama?  His mother was a US citizen, and his father was (ostensibly) a “national”, no?  And his alleged (by some) biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, who himself was a full-fledged citizen.

    1. KenSwan says:

      dleeper47  His mother DID NOT qualify as she did not reside in the US for the required time PER US code (a full one year PRIOR to his birth) plus the way the Law was written at the time (1961) to qualify you had to reside within the US boundry’s for a minimum of 5 (FIVE) years AFTER your 16th birthday (once again Dunham did not qualify as she was living in Kenya/Indonesia before she was 19) Obama SR was not a “National” as he had NEVER applied for Citizenship, and WAS NOT living in the United States at the time of Obama’s birth

      1. dleeper47 says:

        KenSwan dleeper47 
        Thanks, Ken. I have to say you’re ahead of me on this … I haven’t looked as deeply as you have.
        I’m glad some people are working to get this squared away for the historical record.  It’s too late to keep him out of the presidency, but I at least want that historical record to show that he’s a flim-flam artist and that he committed forgery as a sitting president (and virtually no one seemed to care, which still blows my mind).
        How does Ted Cruz stack up on these same points of law (viz., his mother’s birth, residency, etc.)?  Do you think Democrats would raise the subject if he were to seek the nomination?  Or just us conservatives?

        1. dleeper47 KenSwan No matter what happens, the likelihood that a double-standard will be applied is approximately 100%

      2. PatrickJColliano says:

        KenSwan dleeper47 Would you people PLEASE get your facts straight? It’s after the FOURTEENTH birthday, not the sixteenth, for one thing.
        For another, according to the Supreme Court ruling, Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, the law is applied as it reads today. So, hypothetically speaking, if Obama was born in Kenya (which he was not), then Obama would be made a natural born citizen retroactively.

    2. SunnydSmiles says:

      dleeper47 Under British laws….(They are who ruled Kenya where Obama Sr was a citizen…thus making Obama Sr a British Citizen) Obama Jr would be a British citizen….The son born of the Father….no matter where he was born…would be a British Citizen.

  2. GregoryConterio says:

    Thanks David!
    Personally, I thought the case was closed on Obama a long time ago.  The notion of birth announcements being “planted” into the micro fiche records for several different newspapers was a bridge too far for me.  Aside from which, you are correct, according to Title 8, Section 1401, even if he was born in Outer-Mongolia, he was still a citizen under that code.  And case law is pretty clear that even as a minor, he cannot lose his status as a citizen if he is considered “natural born.”  He would have to affirmatively renounce it as an adult.  That’s why I also never bought the “forged birth certificate” argument either.  What need would there be?
    I always thought the more profitable question on that front was what his passport might say, but I doubt we’ll ever have a look at that.

    1. dleeper47 says:

      GregoryConterio
      I was very interested in the forged birth certificate before the 2012 election because of what it said about Obama’s character — not because it might make him ineligible to hold office.
      With the Dems assaulting Romney’s character for being successful, putting his dog on the roof of his car, etc., I thought that issuing a proven forgery from our White House was a huge indictment of Obama’s character. And to add insult to injury, it was a low-quality forgery at that! Sheesh!
      But nobody seemed to want to make anything of it. Fear of the “birther” label from the media kept almost everybody silent. I was told by the higher-ups that people like Obama as a person and we didn’t want to risk losing an election we were sure to win on the merits otherwise.  Ha!

      1. dleeper47 GregoryConterio What freaked me out was not the birth certificate situation so much as his Social Security number. It begins with 042, which as far as I know is a Connecticut-issued SS#. Why would he have that? I never really studied up on the issue, though, because I thought it was more important to try to beat him on the issues rather than on personal/bio stuff.

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          WesternFreePress dleeper47 GregoryConterio 
          I don’t know if that is ACTUALLY his SSN, (seriously, if somebody published YOURS, would you admit it?) but assuming it is, yeah, there is clearly fraud involved.
          And regardless, his agenda is with out a doubt bad news for everyone.  There is nothing worse than a committed ideologue.

        2. GregoryConterio dleeper47 Yes indeed. I find what he has gotten away with thus far truly stunning.

        3. dleeper47 says:

          WesternFreePress dleeper47 GregoryConterio 
          There are dozens of things about his WH-issued birth certificate and selective service registration card that are absurd. See Mike Zullo’s videos on WFP. The forger was amateurish and lazy in his work. Obama didn’t even have enough respect for Americans or the “news media” to have a decent forgery prepared. 
          The irony is that those same media, including Fox, won’t touch it now, because to do so would admit their gross negligence. Encouraged by what Obama and his entourage can get away with, they have pretty much a free hand to deceive going forward.

    2. SunnydSmiles says:

      GregoryConterio NO one said the “Birth Announcement” was planted on mico fiche….sheesh…. what was said is that ANYONE can put a birth announcement in a paper…no matter where the child was born. 
      I can put one in my local paper…for my grandkids when they are born. 
       I am curious if the Hospitals at that time did their own as they did in the late 70’s when MY kids were born…The hospital put “Births” in the papers..THIS came straight from the hospital …a “Birth announcement” does not…

      1. RobertEagle says:

        SunnydSmiles GregoryConterio Right, anyone can put an announcement in the papers. When I was born, my birth was announced in 3 different states in 3 different papers so relatives would see it.  Same with my daughter when she was born.  She was born in San Pedro Calif on an army base and yet her announcements were in LA papers, San Francisco papers and Seattle and Tacoma papers. So birth announcement don’t mean squat! 
        Now they have found his birth records in the British National Archives that he WAS born in Kenya on Aug4, 1961 to Barack Obama Sr.

  3. IreneC says:

    The issue with Obama is, if he is indeed a natural born citizen, did he commit fraud by receiving federal financial aid and other benefits as a “foreign” student during his college years? That would explain why his college records are sealed. Also, what about the time he spent in Indonesia, attending a school there that reportedly did not accept non-citizens? Did he become an Indonesian citizen during that time, and if so, did he ever renounce that citizenship and reaffirm his American citizenship?

    1. IreneC Three are, without a doubt,m a lot of question marks and seemingly sleazy dealings in Obama’s hazy and well-hidden past. Fortunately, Ted Cruz is and has none of that!

    2. GregoryConterio says:

      IreneC 
      I would LOVE to see his college records, Irene!  U.S. law however is pretty clear that as a minor, Neither Obama nor his mother could not have “renounced” his citizenship to the U.S. if he is Natural Born.  The only way that can happen is if as an adult, one makes an official statement of renunciation to a qualified U.S. official.  For example, going to a U.S. Consulate, and renouncing your citizenship.  Case law is also pretty clear that accepting citizenship status with another power does not cause you to lose your status as a U.S. citizen.  While it would certainly be unprecedented, and may have negatively affected his electoral chances if known, having dual citizenship would not necessarily disqualify him from the presidency.

    3. SunnydSmiles says:

      IreneC yep..and IF he did, that is a felony, and ya can’t be POTUS if you are a felon…

  4. SunnydSmiles says:

    I guess you missed the writings of the framers among other things.
     Also although you say Minor vs Happersett does not “Define Natural Born Citizen” it actually does in the brief, but I guess you chose to ignore that since it talks about Citizen AND Natural Born Citizen.
     Lastly, Dems tried several times to change the definition of Natural Born Citizen before Obama ran for office, in 2008, THEY themselves DEFINED it when they declared McCain, who was born in Panama to be a “Natural Born Citizen” born of TWO USA Citizen parents. 
    Although I like Cruz, he is just as ineligible as Obama. IF we do not stand BY the Constitution and follow it, electing Cruz would then change the Constitution by FIAT. Only ONE person elected POTUS in America’s history, did NOT meet the requirements of the Constitution for eligibility for POTUS. and that was Chester Arthur….and HE lied…It was not found out until after he was dead. 

    FYI……………………..

    The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define “natural born.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” the Act states, “shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
    Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.
    “Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution’s ‘natural born citizen’ qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties,” wrote Klein in “The Manchurian President.”
    On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
    Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable 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.”
    Jay, however, also did not define “natural born.”
    Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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.”
    – See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/investigation-obama-likely-not-eligible.html#sthash.IIiXXsiD.dpuf

    1. OILDANCE says:

      SunnydSmiles I agree with you!

      1. OILDANCE says:

        SunnydSmiles Unfortunately, they didn’t define the term because they knew the meaning.  They didn’t know how uniformed and how easily misled the masses would become.  It is easy to mislead people if it gives them what they want.

        1. SunnydSmiles says:

          OILDANCESunnydSmilesThey didn’t define it, but if one were to read the writings and even the SCOTUS briefs although they do not apply to this specific topic, they DO define it. 
          The funny part is that children born of US parents in another country were ALREADY declared by a congressional act stated in http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0200/02280104.tif:
          Congress: “And 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.”
          Another congressional act in http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen.”
           So WHY was there ANY question about this in the FIRST place? 

          ALSO, the FOUNDERS themselves made a distinction between Citizen and Natural Born in Article II of the Constitution…

          ——————————————————————-

          Even Obama signed US Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008, reveals the importance of having two US Citizen parents to being a natural born citizen and eligible for the US Presidency……
          110th CONGRESS
          2d Session
          S. RES. 511
          Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
          IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
          April 10, 2008
          Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
          April 24, 2008
          Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
          April 30, 2008
          Considered and agreed to
          ——————————————————————————–
          RESOLUTION
          Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
          Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
          Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
          Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
          Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
          Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
          Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
          Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
          Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

    2. GregoryConterio says:

      SunnydSmiles Legal briefs submitted by opposing sides of a case carry no legal weight.  (ESPECIALLY if the brief in question was written by the losing-side!)  The only thing that DOES carry such weight is the opinion or finding of the court.

      1. SunnydSmiles says:

        GregoryConterio SunnydSmiles If you for ONE minute do not believe that Natural Born means EXACTLY that you have to be born to TWO citizen parents… 
        WHY with the exception of Chester Arthur have ALL POTUS’S HAD two citizen parents as soon as it were possible??  The others were “Citizens” because it was not possible for them to be Natural born at that time.

        WHY did the Dems try to change the defination SEVEN times before Obama ran? 
        WHY the charade during the 2008 elections to declare McCain an NBC when there were ALREADY standing showing there was NO QUESTION that he was one??? It was because it took the light off the fact that Obama was NOT an NBC. I don’t care if he was born in a manger…he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen….
        Logic tells you from the writings and that Vattel’s laws WERE used by the founding fathers and it DOES state what an NBC is… The writing I mentioned above talked about “Dual Citizenship” and loyalties…and the term Natural Born was ADDED to the final version of the Constitution…
        Sorry, you are entitled to YOUR opinion, but MY opinion is that you are wrong!

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles GregoryConterio You are a veritable font of disinformation. The Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, plainly states that the U.S. uses the common law definition of “natural born,” and Vattel (who NEVER used the term natural born) did not decide for us. In fact, even Minor v. Happersett, a case that you erroneously claim to have created a comprehensive definition of “natural born citizen,” states that the United States uses common law, and Vattel is not even mentioned.
          And according to common law, any child born in the U.S., even to alien parents, is natural born.
          That’s the way it ALWAYS has been in the U.S.
          Minor v. Happersett could not and did not define natural born citizen. The case involved a woman named Virginia Minor, who believed that the privileges or immunities clause gave her the right to vote, as it expressly stated that no state could pass any law that abridged the privileges or immunities of citizens. Since she was a citizen, she reasoned, that meant that no state could prohibit her from voting.
          The Supreme Court needed only establish that Virginia Minor was a citizen, since there is no distinction between the voting rights of natural born or naturalized citizens. This was done by pointing out that as a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents, she was a natural born citizen, therefore a citizen. The Supreme Court refused to address those born in the U.S. to one or two aliens because it was in no way relevant to the case.

        2. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJCollianoSunnydSmilesGregoryConterioWrong Brainiack…THEY were CITIZENS…. You FORGET the Constitution……where it says Citizens at the time of signing, or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS……and since Oldance said it best…..here is the comment….  4 hours ago
          You
          will find all kinds of rampant misinterpretation of the real meaning of
          a Natural Born Citizen because TPTB want you to be confused. The US
          code from 1940 not once refers to the meaning of a natural born citizen.
          It refers to citizens by birth. They are two different things.
          Vattel’s Law of Nations rom 1758 defines the term. It isn’t rocket
          science. As with religion, there are those who wish to deceive. It is
          easy to deceive a willing people who want to believe what they wish to
          be true. Ted Cruz was born a citizen. By virtue of his mother, he is a
          citizen and it was by birth. But by virtue of the fact that his father
          was a Cuban citizen and by virtue of the fact that he was born in
          Canada, Mr. Cruz has multiple citizenships all by virtue of his birth.
          None of those by the way allow him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. What part of this do people keep getting
          confused about. Read Vattel’s Law of Nations. He spells it out in Book
          1 Chapter XIX section 212. That was the primary source our founders
          used in addition to the Bible. Know the truth and try to promote truth
          not politcal expediency!

  5. OILDANCE says:

    The US code you reference is difining who is a citizen.  It does not attempt to define the diffence of what is a natural born citizen.  You have to have some historical understanding about that.  It’s been explained over and over, but people just don’t want to admit what the real meaning is.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      OILDANCE The TITLE of the Code you say doesn’t define natural born citizens is “citizens at birth.” http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=Nationals+and+citizens+of+United+States+at+birth&f=treesort&fq=true&num=10&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title8-section1401
      If you contend there is a material distinction between the terms “natural born citizen” and citizen at birth” please provide links to the relevant U.S. Code or case law which illustrates this distinction.

      1. IamPublius says:

        GregoryConterio OILDANCE  Why do you presume that the COTUS depends on USC? Nothing could be further from reality.

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          IamPublius GregoryConterio OILDANCE 
          I do not understand your question.  Where do I say or imply the Constitution “depends” on the US Code?  I actually say exactly the opposite.

      2. OILDANCE says:

        GregoryConterio OILDANCE It’s in Vatte’s Law of Nations from 1758.  The founders knew the meaning and so did the generally educated electorate.  Unfortunately, the founders didn’t realize what dolts Americans would become.

  6. R C Jackman says:

    . . . NO, TED IS NOT ELIGIBLE !!
    A ‘natural born citizen’ is a child of two citizen parents.
    Ted’s father was not naturalized until 35 years after Ted was born. Ted’s
    father was not a U.S. citizen when Ted was born. Hence, Ted is not a ‘natural
    born citizen’, and he is not constitutionally eligible to the presidency.
    [The article cited above bases its argument on U.S. Code
    Law. But that law is totally irrelevant to the definition of ‘natural born
    citizen’. It takes a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution.]

    1. IamPublius says:

      R C Jackman Exactly R C. The COUTS exists not because of but in spite of USC.

    2. GregoryConterio says:

      R C Jackman 
      As I note in the article above, even Blackwell, the acknowledged authority on English Common Law writes that children born outside English territory and jurisdiction to a single parent were still legally regarded as “Natural Born Subjects of the Crown” in more “modern times.” (at least modern to him)

    3. PatrickJColliano says:

      R C Jackman That is not true and never was. A child born in the U.S., even to aliens, is a natural born citizen. As ruled by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the term “natural born” comes from English common law, and applied to anyone born in the jurisdiction, even if both parents are aliens.

      1. R C Jackman says:

        PatrickJColliano
        R C Jackman
        ‘Natural born SUBJECT’ comes from the English.It’s not the same as ‘natural born CITIZEN’.We fought a war because we disagreed with the
        English.Our definition comes from
        Vattel.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          R C JackmanPatrickJColliano We fought the American Revolution because we disagreed with them over a number of issues. The rules of citizenship were not among them. The Constitution of the United States uses MANY terms appropropriated from English common law, including “natural born,” a term which Vattel NEVER used.
          The Supreme Court deciding Wong Kim Ark disagrees with you about where the term “natural born” comes from.
          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England
          for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this
          country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the
          dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
          allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the
          power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every
          child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
          the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State
          or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child
          was born.
          “III. The same rule was in force in all the English
          Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of
          Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to
          prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
          You’ll notice they say that every child born in England to alien parents was “natural born” and the U.S. has always observed “the same rule.
          In the future, please refrain from discussing things of which you have no knowledge.

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          R C JackmanPatrickJColliano Not according to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled, in the decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that our definition of “natural born citizen” comes to us from English common law.
          From U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

          The Constitution of the United States, as originally
          adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and
          “natural-born citizen of the United States.” …
          The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of
          these words, … In this as in other
          respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
          principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of
          the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, , 422; Boyd v. United States, , 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, .
          The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be
          understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley,
          J., in Moore v. United States, , 274.  
          In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
          … The interpretation of
          the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the
          fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English
          common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

  7. IamPublius says:

    Look to Vattel and Law of Nations. There needs to exist an allegiance of the parents to the nation that one is claiming NBC status. That is, BOTH parents at the birth of the child are themselves either citizens from birth or are naturalized according to the laws of that nation.
    If only one parent is a citizen then a divided loyalty is likely to be instilled in the child. This is particularly likely if you have a child with a stay at home mother who is vocally loyal to her homeland.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      IamPublius Vattel was a philosopher.  He didn’t contribute to the writing of either our Constitution, or the U.S. Code.
      Allow me to ask, if we are to consider his writings as “authoritative” or “controlling” as you imply, why should we not give equal weight to the writings and philosophies of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels?  They were also foreign born philosophers who wrote on similar topics to Vattel, why should we not give them equal weight and consideration?
      I can answer that question for myself by saying that while I might be informed by one particular philosopher and repelled by another, I am my own authority on what I believe to be right and wrong, and how to conduct my own affairs, and as such I can also evolve in my thinking and opinions, changing both with time and experience.  In the same manner, our founders did not write our Constitution and say “you, our political heirs and progeny MUST do everything exactly and only according to Vattel or Locke or Montesquieu.”  They acknowledged that we must write our own laws, and even change the Constitution they wrote for us as we gain our own experience and wisdom as a nation.
      When it comes to Article II, one view may be that the founders made a mistake by assuming future generations would “know exactly” what they meant by the term “Natural Born Citizen.”  But I think it is far more likely that, being well-educated, informed men of experience, they deliberately picked a Term of Art, the precise definition of which had changed and evolved even in their time, and left it to us to decide precisely what it would mean in ours.

      1. SunnydSmiles says:

        GregoryConterioIamPubliusYes he WAS, but it applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, and was USED in part to create our Constitution…READ the Federalist papers!

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          SunnydSmiles GregoryConterio IamPublius Really?  How did he become a delegate to the convention, being as he didn’t reside in the U.S. and was not a citizen?
          Of course Vattel didn’t contribute to writing the Constitution.  He was one of many influences upon those who did, but that does not mean any of his writings carry special weight or authority within our legal system.  But when contrasted with other influences, like Blackstone, he perfectly demonstrates why the ONLY controlling authority within U.S. law is the law itself.  Many of the legal and philosophical influences upon the Founders differed in detail upon various topics.  How can you possibly insist one is absolutely right, and others wrong when even the founders themselves are silent on the subject?
          Speaking of which, since you imply that you are much more knowledgeable than I  about the Federalist Papers, it should be no difficulty for you to quote the specific passages defining “Natural Born Citizen” or where they admonish that the definition of same cannot be determined by Code law?

        2. SunnydSmiles says:

          GregoryConterio SunnydSmiles IamPublius You are intentionally misunderstanding what I said…His “Laws” were used!!!  
          Whatever, I see it does not matter WHAT is pointed out to you…you believe what you believe. Your failure to use LOGIC astounds me. there are too many things that, while Natural Born Citizen is not defined SPECIFICALLY, point to what they intended.  
          MAYBE the founders thought those that followed would be intelligent enough to understand exactly what they MEANT!  I have already posted enough to blow up what you wrote. I am done….

        3. GregoryConterio says:

          SunnydSmiles GregoryConterio IamPublius 
          With respect Sunny, I was the one who said Vattel didn’t contribute to the writing of the Constitution, and indeed he did not, as he was not there.  You disagreed with me.
          Vattel was a philosopher, he did not “write laws” but critiqued and commented upon them.  Others wrote laws, sometimes influenced by his work.  It’s a critical distinction.
          I always endeavor to be logical, and I’m sorry if you don’t think so.  As before, I sincerely ask that where you think I am wrong, you offer specific evidence to support your case.  I have offered evidence in the form of Blackwell’s work (among other things) which refutes many of the claims about the founders’ understanding of the meaning of NBC, and by bringing up Vattel, you and others have provided evidence against the notion that there was a single, clear known definition of the term at that time.  Basing my conclusions upon such facts, I believe I have been nothing but logical.  If you have evidence that refutes this, Please do not hesitate to share it.

        4. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterioSunnydSmilesIamPublius
          Some will say that the founding fathers used
          the definition of natural born subjects from British common law.I find it odd that a group of people trying
          to create a brand new country, separate themselves from a King and country that
          they were subjects of would use those laws exclusively to draft their new
          Constitution. They also did not use the word subject but used the word citizen
          to describe this nation’s people.
          Was Vattel a favorite book of some of the
          founders, and may have been influential in the development of our Constitution?
          Judging by this from Benjamin Franklin to
          Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December, 1775 it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you
          have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the
          circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law
          of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our
          own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts
          Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our
          Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and
          have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
          From , p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the time of the American
          Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most
          authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and
          Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time.
          Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his
          predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law of Nature upon
          International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American Journal of
          International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.Also during this period who was a member of the Congress Franklin spoke
          of? It was John Jay a Delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-76 from New
          York. .” If they received a copy of
          it in 1775 then by the time the Constitution was adopted it had been in their
          hands for over a decade.
          The framers sought to prevent the influence
          of foreign governments or monarchies and wrote in to the Constitution the Natural Born Citizen clause ” 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.”
          This clause and its wording were a direct
          result of a conversation in letters, specifically this between and George Washington.
          For those that do not know of John Jay and
          his importance in the drafting of the Constitution I present the
          following.John Jay, Alexander Hamilton
          and James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly known
          as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of New York why
          they should support the ratification of the Constitution. John Adams later said
          in reference to who was the most influential proponent of constitutional reform
          that Jay was
          After seeing the draft language by Alexander
          Hamilton of the requirements to be President, John Jay wrote this in his letter
          to George Washington dated 25 July 1787. John Jay was an avid reader of
          Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law
          (1758).In this book the definition of
          what a “natural born Citizen” is can be found p. 101 in section
          212. “The natives, or natural-born
          citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
          Section 212 provides us with insight as to Jays wording of his letter back to
          Washington here “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
          Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any
          but a natural born Citizen.”

      2. RobertEagle says:

        GregoryConterio IamPublius

      3. RobertEagle says:

        GregoryConterio IamPublius What you may not realize is that the founding father’s used various sources when writing the Constitution, one of which was the Law of Nations by Vattal, in which he does define Natural born citizen..  Now you may argue this fact by saying that the Law of Nations is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is!  It is mentioned under the powers of congress., in ref to piracy and crimes on the high seas against the Law of Nations!

      4. PeterLettkeman says:

        GregoryConterio IamPublius I would disagree with your point that vattel had nothing to do with our Constitution and I provided it in my extended length posts.

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio IamPublius I did not anywhere say Vattel “had nothing to do with our constitution.”  I said he was not involved in writing it, which being as he was not there, is absolutely true.
          SunnyDSmiles miss-quoted me.

    2. OILDANCE says:

      IamPublius You are absolutely correct.  Those of us who were educated in this country before the Communists took over the system remember quite well the meaning of the term.

    3. PatrickJColliano says:

      IamPublius As ruled in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. adopted the “common law” definition of “natural born.” A natural born citizen is anyone who acquires their citizenship by birth. A child born in the U.S. even to alien parents, is a natural born citizen.

  8. OILDANCE says:

    Well GregoryConterio you are simply wrong.  You are spewing confusion and misleading people about the true meaning and I believe you know it.  Your arguement doens’t hold water.  There is enough historical precidence for the meaning and what you cite about citizen at birth is wholely incorrect.  A child born or two parents who are citizens of Mexico, can have a child born in the USA and that is a Citizen by birth.  You are just being stubborn and willfully misleading.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      OILDANCE 
      “Your arguement doens’t hold water.”
      Maybe it doesn’t, but so far nobody has provided any substantive evidence to that effect.  If you would like to “prove” where I am wrong, I welcome it.  But simply “declaring” it does not make it so.
      “There is enough historical precidence for the meaning and what you cite about citizen at birth is wholely incorrect.”
      If this is true, there you should have no trouble providing some examples.  Please show me the one, singular definition of the term, contemporary to the 1780s, how that definition differed from Blackstone (since you say he is wrong…) and evidence that there existed no differing opinions or ambiguity as to its meaning, along with the source of authority.
      “A child born or two parents who are citizens of Mexico, can have a child born in the USA and that is a Citizen by birth.  You are just being stubborn and willfully misleading”
      Of course such a child would be a citizen.  Where have I stated or implied that they are not?

      1. OILDANCE says:

        GregoryConterio OILDANCE  The point I am making that that is an example of a citizen at birth.  A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth by two parents who are BOTH United States Citzens.  I really think you are smart enough to figure it out and above all WHY it is so!

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          OILDANCE GregoryConterio 
          As I pointed out, no less an authority than Blackstone disagrees with you.  How does one reconcile this fact?
          There were not fewer uneducated and unsophisticated citizens in America in the Founders’ time than there are now, and I believe this is why you will not find anything in the constitution saying the right to vote automatically comes with citizenship.  In fact one of the cases I talk about above makes that very finding, and correctly so in my judgment.  The Founders left it to the states to determine who could and could not vote.  There was a strong feeling that only landowners have the privilege.  While it was not addressed in federal law, many states prohibited women from voting.  My point being, the Founders had their own contemporary notions about preventing the “dumbed-down” parts of society for unduly influencing politics and the legislative process, and clearly were aware if the potential problem it posed..
          When it comes to the law, there are words with precise, known meanings, and there are what are called Terms of Art.  A Term of Art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning which depends on context or place of use, and Natural Born Citizen is exactly such a term.  Either the Founders used it deliberately, or as you imply, they used it by mistake, but either way, that is the term they used.  Since it can be demonstrated by comparing the writings of some of the different scholars and philosophers of the time that the term did not in fact have a single, clear and universal definition, and that the term itself had in fact evolved and changed materially in the recent past, it is perfectly reasonable in my view to clarify its definition in Code law.

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          OILDANCE GregoryConterio That standard does not exist in the U.S. and never did. As determined in the Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the common law definition of “natural born” is what we live under. And a “natural born” citizen is anyone who gains U.S. citizenship by birth. A child born in the U.S., even to aliens, is a natural born citizen.

        3. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano OILDANCE GregoryConterio  So by your definition an anchor baby is eligible to be President? If so how do you think that meets the original intent of the founders to keep out foreign influence?

      2. OILDANCE says:

        GregoryConterio OILDANCE  I do wish the founders would have realized how dumbed down Americas would become.  The meaning IS the meaning as defined and understood at the time of the ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION!

  9. This comment was offered by a Facebook conservative called “Rogue Rose” It is intended to bolster the analysis of case law in the article above:
    Here’s Wong Kim Ark. 
    1. Here’s the specific question before the court…… 
    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
    “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.” 
    2. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution begins with the words,
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.”
    As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. 
    3. By Act of Congress in 1790…
    In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:
    “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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
    4. The 1790 provision was repealed and replaced in 1802 with this….”… the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.”
    5. The current controlling Act is the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
    6. Finally, the ruling of the court. “… the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    1. OILDANCE says:

      WesternFreePress Again, this references what a citizen is with the exception of one paragraph that mentions natural-born, and that paragraph clearly states “children of citizens of the United States.”  That would be plural NOT singular!

      1. PatrickJColliano says:

        OILDANCE WesternFreePress That’s because “children” is plural. Unless you think all the hypothetical children throughout the ages will have the same father, then they’re going to have more than one set of parents, therefore “parent” must be in the plural.
        It would make no sense for this opinion to say “children of a citizen of the United States,” since they were speaking of children born throughout the ages of the existence of the United States.

        1. OILDANCE says:

          PatrickJColliano OILDANCE WesternFreePress That’s a goofey comment.  Of course they would say “parent” if it only required one parent. Duuhhhh

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          OILDANCE PatrickJColliano WesternFreePress I swear you get dumber every post.
          Parents is plural because children is plural. They are talking about children born throughout the history of the U.S. Obviously, they can’t all have one parent in common.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      WesternFreePress You left out one specific detail. The ruling of Wong Kim Ark divided the ruling up into six sections.
      The first section established that “natural born,” like many undefined terms that appear within the Constitution, have their basis in English common law. Which makes sense. Up until eleven years prior to the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, the delegates to the Constitution (35 out of 55 were lawyers), actually WERE British subjects. Obviously, they knew English common law, and the Constitution uses many terms that are derived from English common law. They also used six cases (including Minor v. Happersett) that resorted to common law when determining what undefined terms (including “natural born”) meant.
      The second section delved into English common law, deferring to respected sources on the subject of English common law, such as Alexander Cockburn (first chief justice of the English Supreme Court, appointed by Queen Victoria) and noted British jurist of the day, Albert Venn Dicey.
      And what they discovered was important. 1) A child born in England, even to aliens just passing through England, was considered a citizen from birth, and 2) “natural born” referred to ANYONE who was a subject from birth.
      From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

      It thus clearly appears that, by the law of
      England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of
      this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing
      in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
      allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the
      power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every
      child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
      the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State
      or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child
      was born.

      III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this
      continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in
      the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the
      Constitution as originally established.Notice, a child born in England, even to aliens, was considered “natural born” and the U.S. has always observed “the same rule.”
      And section III cites numerous sources to support this claim. The U.S. has observed this rule since the Declaration of Independence.
      Now unless the Supreme Court followed that with “And we’re here to put a stop to all that!” (which they didn’t), it couldn’t be plainer. Anyone born in the U.S. even to aliens, is a natural born citizen, and “natural born citizen” simply means “citizen from birth.”
      Wong Kim Ark was established as a natural born citizen by the third section.
      The remaining sections address other arguments, such citizenship following the parents rather than place of birth. Although Congress has created laws to extend natural born citizenship to those born outside the U.S. to citizen parents, the citizenship of the parents remains supremely irrelevant to those born IN the U.S.
      They also addressed the possibility that the Chinese exclusion act (the reason Wong Kim Ark’s parents could NOT become U.S. citizens) would exclude a Chinese person from citizenship at birth. The court reasoned that an ordinary act of legislation could not do this, because if the Court allowed the Chinese Exclusion Act to prevent a Chinese person born in the U.S. from being a citizen, then Congress could overturn the 14th Amendment merely by passing a law that prevented black people from becoming naturalized citizens. Because their children, even if born in the U.S., could not be citizens either.
      They also addressed whether Wong Kim Ark’s parents, by taking him to China, could have dispossessed him of his citizenship. The court concluded that whether Wong Kim Ark’s parents could dispossess him of his citizenship, even if they WANTED to, was “at least doubtful.”
      (As ruled in Perkins v. Elg, parents canNOT dispossess their minor children of their U.S. citizenship, no matter what they do.)
      The reason I bring this up is because birthers are fond of saying that Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship was decided by the fourteenth amendment, as if that means he’s not really a natural born citizen.
      And that just isn’t true. Yes, the lower the court decided it that way. And it was how the question was presented to the Supreme Court, but that is NOT how the Supreme Court ruled. They did not decide Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment. They decided it based upon the common law definition of “natural born” and that definition has existed since before the United States was founded. Wong Kim Ark would have been a natural born citizen with or without the Fourteenth Amendment. He was decided on the basis of English common law, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

  10. RogueRose says:

    I agree 100% and have done some more in depth analysis on Happersett (fwiw)..
    Natural Born Citizenship and Happersett.
    1.
    Courts limit themselves to the facts of the case before them (or at
    least, used to).. since she was a child born to 2 American parents, they
    said that definitely
    she fell within the definition of NBC.. They specifically did not
    address the 14th Amendment citizens and whether they were also NBC,
    since the 14th Amendment was not the basis of her citizenship. They also
    specifically refused to speculate about whether the NBC definition also
    included other categories of citizens, since that didn’t apply in this
    case.. when reading caselaw, you have to focus both on what they do say
    AND what they don’t say.. read the last 2 sentences.
    2.
    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born
    citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law,
    with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
    familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of
    parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,
    citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as
    distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and
    include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without
    reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there
    have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this
    case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for
    everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen
    parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “
    3.
    Here’s the 14th Amendment language.. they are NOT saying that citizens
    under the 14th Amendment are not NBC.. they are saying that she was
    already a citizen because her parents were citizens and she was born on
    US soil, so the 14th Amendment didn’t come into play.. again.. they
    addressed the specific facts before them and didn’t address facts that
    weren’t before them.. they weren’t addressing the facts of a person who
    was a citizen under the provisions of the 14th amendment because that
    issue wasn’t in front of them. (I know, it’s a very unfamiliar situation
    due to our modern activist courts)
    4.
    “The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any
    more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of
    Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a
    citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities
    of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a
    citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a
    citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her.
    That she had before its adoption.”
    5.
    The language couldn’t be more clear.. the court refused to take up the
    argument regarding a broader interpretation of NBC. So this case, at
    best, says they didn’t say they were.. but they also specifically
    refused to say they weren’t.
    6.
    And don’t forget, Happersett denied American women the right to vote,
    deciding that yes, they’re citizens (thanks dudes) but since voting
    wasn’t essential to citizenship, they weren’t entitled to vote..Minor v.
    Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. The decision in the
    case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States
    was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the
    right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

    1. RogueRose Well done. I have noticed, though, that no preponderance of evidence seems to make a difference with a lot of the hardcore believers.

  11. MichaelGerardi says:

    Minor v. Happersett,  88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1875) actually states,  “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 [emphasis added]  became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  Hence a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” was not only a “citizen,” but also a “natural-born citizen.”  Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [168] parents. As to this class THERE HAVE BEEN DOUBTS [emphasis added], but never as to the first.”  So this case most certainly DOES speak to what constitutes a “natural born citizen”.
    If a child is born of parentage subject to dual sovereignties, and thus with divided loyalties, that child IMO is not, and should not be considered, a “natural born citizen”.  And I say that as a supporter of Ted Cruz.  I’m not going to change my position on the issue just because in this case it would be to my political advantage to do so.  I said it about B-HOle, and I’ll say it about anyone else who runs for President.
    What is needed is a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the subject.  Given the composition of the Court today, however, I would prefer that they not get their grimy hands on it.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      MichaelGerardiThe court ruling you’re citing has been deliberately misconstrued
      by birthers as saying that ONLY those born in the United States to
      citizen parents are natural born citizens. It says no such thing. It
      says that those born in the United States are natural born citizens,
      therefore citizens. It does not include any language that restricts the term.
      Nor
      should they. The case is about voting rights for women. Virginia
      believed that the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth
      Amendment gave her the right to vote. The privileges or immunities
      clause reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
      abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
      States…” Virginia Minor reasoned (as did her husband Francis, a lawyer
      who represented her), that she is a citizen of the United States, the
      right to vote is one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship,
      therefore, the state of Missouri had no right to enact laws that
      prevented her from voting.
      To determined whether or not her
      reasoning was valid, they Supreme Court first determined that she was a
      citizen. First they ruled that those born under her circumstances, in
      the U.S. to citizen parents, are obviously natural born citizens
      (therefore citizens). They refused to address any doubts about those
      born under other circumstances (such as born in the U.S. to one or two
      alien parents), because for the purposes of this case, there was no
      reason to. If you had included one more sentence from the excerpt that
      you quoted from Minor v. Happersett, you would have found. “It is sufficient for everything we have now to
      consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
      jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
      Notice, for
      the purposes of this case, all they needed to know is that those born in
      the United States to citizen parents are themselves citizens, without reference to what kind of citizen.
      The
      ruling then continues at length pointing out that gender is no
      impediment to being a citizen. In other words, they established that
      those born in her circumstances were citizens. They then went on to rule
      that women of course, can be citizens of the United States; their
      gender does not make them non-citizens.
      They concluded that the
      Constitution does not give the right to vote to anyone; therefore, the
      right to vote is not one of the “privileges or immunities” of
      citizenship. They then said that if the law is wrong, it must be
      changed. However, the power to change it doesn’t rest with the Supreme
      Court. The Court then suggested that the Minors make their case to those
      with the power to change the law.
      A court can only create
      precedent on a question that is before it. Virginia Minor was not
      seeking to run for President, therefore the court had no reason to
      create a comprehensive definition of natural born citizenship. There is
      no difference between the voting rights of naturalized or natural born
      citizens, therefore, no need to establish Virginia Minor as one or
      another. It was sufficient to establish her as a citizen.

      1. MichaelGerardi says:

        PatrickJColliano MichaelGerardi If you read what I wrote carefully, you will find no assertion that Happersett established that “ONLY those born in the United States to citizen parents are natural born citizens.”  The Court most certainly did ADDRESS the issue, but the Court did not conclusively DECIDE the issue.  You are correct that the case did not turn on the issue of “natural born citizenship,” still less on the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States.  That is why I continued that a definitive decision by the Supreme Court on that specific issue, in a case that TURNS on that issue, is needed.
        You will also find in the history of the adoption of the 14th Amendment that the issue of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, IIRC in the context of children of foreign diplomats, the gist of the discussion being that those children who are born of two American citizens and thus do not have potentially divided loyalties, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  IMO this should be part of the definition of natural born citizenship as well.  If the Supreme Court does not come to that conclusion, then the Constitution should be amended to make that clear.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          MichaelGerardi PatrickJColliano United States v. Wong Kim Ark determined that “natural born” means “citizen from birth.” And that a child born in the U.S., even to aliens, is natural born.

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          MichaelGerardi PatrickJColliano Actually, there are many court decisions, such as Plyler v. Doe that concluded that even aliens who enter the country illegally, are “under the jurisdiction.”

  12. ToddKiergen says:

    firstly the “one year prior” means it’s ok if the kid is born on vacation but not if the parents had been living in another country  for that year…. Meanwhile Cruz by birth holds Canadian citizenship and US citizenship .. MINOR V. HAPPERSETT is the binding precedence as it is the only case that defined the difference between ‘native born’ and natural born’ citizen … I notice you omitted Until 1971, the US Supreme Court recognized two types of citizenship, and two types only:  natural born and naturalized. In the 1971 case, ,
    the Court, in a 5-4 opinion, created a third type of
    “non-constitutional” citizenship, holding that a person who attains
    his/her US citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to a US citizen
    is not a “Fourteenth Amendment first sentence citizen” and, as such, is
    not entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment….. which directly applies to Cruz. I also noticed that under US immigration law (again omitted) Cruz was supposed to have declared citizenship to the us and renounced citizenship to Canada at age 18.. This doesn’t show up as having been done therefore he still is a “dual citizen” and therefore subject to the “foreign loyalties clause” … nice try though

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      ToddKiergen a “native born” citizen IS a natural born citizen.

      1. ToddKiergen says:

        PatrickJColliano there are 2 separate definitions therefore they are not one in the same

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          ToddKiergen PatrickJColliano Wrong, as always.
          A native born citizen is a subset of “natural born citizen.” A native born citizen is a natural born citizen born in the U.S. This is distinguished from someone who is “foreign born,” a natural born citizen who was born outside the U.S., such as John McCain.

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano ToddKiergen If there is no definition of natural born citizen as you continually argue then how can there be a subset of that class?

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianoToddKiergenDid I say there was no definition? Nope. I said that Minor v. Happersett did not create a comprehensive definition. And it did not. Because it could not.
          Minor v. Happersett was a case in which a woman believed that the fourteenth amendment gave her the right to vote, as a citizen of the United States. In order to rule on this case, the Supreme Court had to first determine that Virginia Minor was a citizen of the United States. Since there is no distinction between the voting rights of natural born citizens vs. naturalized citizens, there was no need to determine what type of citizen she was. They dispensed with this question by stating that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents were undoubtedly natural born citizens, therefore citizens. For, as the Supreme Court said, “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all
          children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
          citizens.”
          Notice, “are themselves CITIZENS.” And that’s ALL they needed to know about her citizenship to decide the case.
          And incidentally, even Minor v. Happersett points out that the source for the definition of natural born citizen is found at common law, NOT Vattel.
          From Minor v. Happersett: “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.”
          Notice, AT COMMON LAW, not Vattel.

        4. ToddKiergen says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano ToddKiergen I’m assuming the guys a liberal plant attempting to get Obama out of the hot water he’ll be in if the 2014 elections go repub or libertarian

  13. PeterLettkeman says:

    I have
    been part of more than one discussion in the last seven years about who or what
    a Natural Born Citizen is. I have done my own research and this is what I have
    come up with.
    Let us start at the beginning of our nation,
    shall we?
    First here are three types of citizens in our
    country. You have Natural Born Citizens who are children born in the U.S. to
    Citizen Parents as defined by nature; these are the only class of citizen that
    are eligible to be President if they are born after 1787. Then you have
    Citizens at Birth which you will find in of the Immigration and
    Naturalization Act (1952) and naturalized citizens who come to our country as immigrants
    found , which are ineligible to be President.
    In the following paper I will explain who were the men behind the clause, why
    they did it, and where I feel we have gone wrong on the subject.
    Some will say that the founding fathers used
    the definition of natural born subjects from British common law.I find it odd that a group of people trying
    to create a brand new country, separate themselves from a King and country that
    they were subjects of would use those laws exclusively to draft their new
    Constitution. They also did not use the word subject but used the word citizen
    to describe this nation’s people.
    Was Vattel a favorite book of some of the
    founders, and may have been influential in the development of our Constitution?
    Judging by this from Benjamin Franklin to
    Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December, 1775 it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you
    have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the
    circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law
    of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our
    own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts
    Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our
    Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and
    have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
    From , p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the time of the American
    Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most
    authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and
    Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time.
    Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his
    predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law of Nature upon
    International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American Journal of
    International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.Also during this period who was a member of the Congress Franklin spoke
    of? It was John Jay a Delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-76 from New
    York. .” If they received a copy of
    it in 1775 then by the time the Constitution was adopted it had been in their
    hands for over a decade.
    The framers sought to prevent the influence
    of foreign governments or monarchies and wrote in to the Constitution the Natural Born Citizen clause ” 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.”
    This clause and its wording were a direct
    result of a conversation in letters, specifically this between and George Washington.
    For those that do not know of John Jay and
    his importance in the drafting of the Constitution I present the
    following.John Jay, Alexander Hamilton
    and James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly known
    as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of New York why
    they should support the ratification of the Constitution. John Adams later said
    in reference to who was the most influential proponent of constitutional reform
    that Jay was
    After seeing the draft language by Alexander
    Hamilton of the requirements to be President, John Jay wrote this in his letter
    to George Washington dated 25 July 1787. John Jay was an avid reader of
    Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law
    (1758).In this book the definition of
    what a “natural born Citizen” is can be found p. 101 in section 212. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are
    those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Section 212
    provides us with insight as to Jays wording of his letter back to Washington
    here “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 Command in Chief of the
    American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born
    Citizen.” Now that we know what is said and where it comes from lets
    address legal opinions of the Supreme Court.

    1. SunnydSmiles says:

      PeterLettkeman THANKS for posting all that..I have also researched and educated myself about this since early 2008 and read all the things you posted, but SOME people just HARDEN their minds to FACTS and are determined to twist things to fit THEIR agenda…Although I LIKE Cruz..he is NOT eligible under the SAME circumstances that Ovomit is not eligible. One big problem is that the LEFT has used the term BIRTHER just as they use RACIST–To shut people DOWN….I could care LESS where Ovomit was born…He is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS and putting Cruz in under the same circumstances, then changes our Constitution by Fiat…Two wrongs do NOT make a right!

      1. PatrickJColliano says:

        SunnydSmiles PeterLettkeman Both Cruz and Obama are eligible. You birthers need to simply stop lying.
         Seriously. Just. Stop. Lying.

        1. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles PeterLettkeman Just the FACTS. Just because you are delusional and cannot accept them is not anyone’s fault but yours.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      PeterLettkeman You wrote: “First here are three types of citizens in our
      country.”
      Nope. Only two. Natural born and naturalized. Natural born are eligible to become president, naturalized are not.

      1. SunnydSmiles says:

        PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanWrong chump…the 3rd is “Citizen”…..READ the Constitution! It says “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”
        Not sure what it is gonna take to get it through your head….but …whatever….

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman No, child. A “citizen” is blanket term that covers both natural born and naturalized citizens.
          All natural born citizens are citizens. But not all citizens are natural born. (For instance, Orly Taitz is a citizen of the U.S., but she’s not natural born.) All naturalized citizens are citizens of the United States, but not all citizens of the United States are natural born. Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he’s not naturalized. He’s natural born.

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles PeterLettkeman But he is a dual citizen which means whether he declares it or not he by law has allegiances to two countries.

        3. SunnydSmiles says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles  Thats right–JUST as Ovomit was a dual Citizen according to British laws (Whom controlled Kenya when Obama was born) AT Obama Jr’s birth he became a Citizen of the England…

        4. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles PeterLettkeman AMEN Patrick! It is like all zonks are zorks but not all zorks are zonks..*lol*

  14. PeterLettkeman says:

    The Supreme Court of which John Jay was the
    first Chief Justice has never ruled on the eligibility of who could be
    President based off of the Natural Born Citizen clause, this is true, but they
    have made reference to who are natural born citizens in several cases.
    Vattel
    is cited six times in this case to include this statement; “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.”
    “The
    inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to
    settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they
    are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are
    obliged to defend it because it grants them protection,
    though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only
    the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants
    are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind
    of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society,
    without participating in all its advantages.”
    Vattel is cited four times in this case to include
    thisstatement; “By this same writer it is also said: “The citizens are the members
    of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to
    its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives
    or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are
    citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of
    the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents,
    and succeed to all their rights.”
    Vattel
    is not directly cited but this statement defines who are Natural Born Citizens
    because there were never doubts about who those people are. “Additions might always be made to the
    citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by
    naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides
    []
    that “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United
    States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the
    office of President, []”
    and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of
    naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by
    naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be
    natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
    common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
    familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents
    who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These
    were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
    foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within
    the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as
    to the first.”
    So far I have provided evidence of where the
    clause came from, and the definition via SCOTUS opinions of what makes a
    Natural Born Citizen. What still needs to be discussed is at what point our
    legislative branch, and our education system lost its way on what the
    definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Why are they so adamant that any citizen
    can be President?

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      PeterLettkeman When it comes to The Venus case, you are citing a dissenting opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall. A dissenting opinion carries NO judicial weight.
      Vattel is also mentioned in the ruling of the Constitution, and both he and Hugo Grotius are summarily dismissed as “not much if any help.” And they both called, “merely elementary writers on the law of nations.”
      Regarding Dred Scott, you are citing a concurring opinion, which also carries no judicial weight. It does not create case law nor become precedent. Aside from the fact that you’re arguing from an opinion that concurred with what is universally accepted as the most disgusting ruling in U.S. history, the fact that it’s a concurring opinion works against you.
      If the authorities truly believed that the United States believed this, then why isn’t it in the ruling of the court itself? Why is merely a concurring opinion, which can carry no judicial weight?
      Minor v. Happersett merely stated that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents were undoubtedly citizens. There is nothing in the language of Minor v. Happersett that restricts the term.

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman You obviously do not understand much do you? The point of this is that it refutes everyone’s comments that NBC is not mentioned in any SCOTUS cases. That is not the truth.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano Who said that NBC is not mentioned in any SCOTUS cases? Not I, I can assure you. Nor did the author of this article make that ridiculous claim.

  15. PeterLettkeman says:

    Congress
    has never amended Art II of the Constitution. It has with the clarified that those born on U.S. soil regardless of
    parents’ citizenship were citizens. This Amendment was part of the post-Civil
    War Amendments to abolish slavery and define the rights of former slaves. The
    primary framer of this Amendment Rep. John Bingham, on more than one occasion,
    on the floor of the House of Representatives stated what the definition of what
    a Natural Born Citizen was. On page of “The Congressional Globe, Volume 66” part 4 you
    will find these words: “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to
    resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard
    is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow
    of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the
    United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day,
    he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
    The date of this was 25 April 1872, a little more than eighty-five years after
    the adoption of the Constitution.
    Those that state that
    any citizen or citizen at birth can be President then why has congress pushed
    the proposals below?
    The congressional record shows that Congress
    started its assault on this clause in 1975 when Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham (D)
    introduced which states “Provides that a citizen of the United States
    otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible
    because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.” This would have
    allowed any citizen regardless of how they became a citizen to be President. He
    attempted again in 1977.
    It was not until 2003, just prior to the
    meteoric rise of President Barack Obama, that Congress attempted eight times in
    twenty-two months to modify or eliminate the Natural Born Citizen clause. Here
    are the attempts.
    1.11 June 2003 Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment –
    Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35
    years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14
    years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
    2.3
    September 2003
    John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a
    citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office
    of President.”
    3.15
    September 2004
    Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the
    Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship
    for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” 
    4.4
    January 2005
    John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a
    citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office
    of President.”
    5.1
    February 2005
    Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the
    Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship
    for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”
    6.14
    April 2005
    Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a
    citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident
    within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of
    President or Vice President.”
    7.28
    February 2008
    Claire McCaskill MO as part of a military funding bill “Children of
    Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural
    born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing
    with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any
    person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve
    components of the U.S. armed forces.”
    In defense of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause but getting the definition
    incorrect:
    8.25
    February 2004
    Don Nickles OK “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional
    term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of
    President”
    All of these attempts ended with
    which was a non-binding resolution stating the John Sidney McCain, III is a
    “natural born citizen” under Art II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the
    United States.“Whereas John Sidney
    McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” and “Whereas the Constitution
    of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the
    President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; –
    Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II,
    Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
    Why, if the definition alludes that
    any citizen can be president, amend the clause? Perhaps that definition is
    incorrect itself.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      PeterLettkeman I’m convinced that you’re not even reading what you post. You simply post a wall of text and claim “This proves that you had to have two citizen parents” to be considered natural born citizens.
      That’s NOT what these proposed amendments say.
      From 1: Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35
      years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14
      years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
      This amendment would have allowed even a naturalized citizen who has held U.S. citizenship for 35 years eligible to be President.
      2.3
      September 2003
      John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a
      citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office
      of President.”
      See? 20 years a citizen of the United States. This would mean that, for all intents and purposes, a person who has been a citizen of the United States for 20 years can become President.
      And this was not proposed because these congressmen somehow psychically predicted the rise of Barack Obama. They were proposed because of the success of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is a citizen of the U.S., but not natural born. Schwarzenegger had become Governor of California following a recall election, and these measures were proposed because they anticipated Schwarzenegger’s rising star would one day make him a viable candidate for the Presidency.
      This statement of yours is also dishonest. “Why, if the definition alludes that
      any citizen can be president, amend the clause? Perhaps that definition is
      incorrect itself.”
      No one, but no one has said that ANY citizen can be U.S. President. Naturalized citizens — those who were not born citizens, but had to acquire their citizenship, such as Arnold Scharzenegger and Orly Taitz — cannot become President.

  16. PeterLettkeman says:

    Now let’s look at the education
    system.
    Elementary
    Catechism on the Constitution of the United States: For the Use by Schools by Arthur Joseph Stansbury: 1828
    in reference to Senators and Representatives:
    Q.
    Can he be chosen if he has not been born in the United States?
    A.
    Yes, if he has become a citizen by being Naturalized, and has been a citizen
    for nine years.
    in reference to the President:
    Q. May any person be chosen
    President of the United States?
    A.Not every person; none may
    be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when
    the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than
    thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for
    fourteen years.
    The
    unconstitutionality of slavery By Lysander Spooner: 1845
    In reference to qualifications to be President:
    “Every
    Person then born in the country, and that attained the age of thirty-five
    years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States is eligible
    to the office of president. And if eligible to that office, the constitution
    certainly does not recognize him as a slave.”
    New
    Englander and Yale Review, Volume 3 edited by Edward Royall
    Tyler, William Lathrop Kingsley, George Park Fisher, Timothy Dwight: 1845
    In reference to the qualifications to be President: “In the latter, the
    term “natural born citizen” is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance
    by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word “citizen” is used
    without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states,
    unless naturalized under our laws.”
    THE
    CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT-BOOK: A PRACTICAL AND FAMILIAR EXPOSITION OF THE FEDERAL
    GOVERNMENT: Furman Sheppard 1855
    Section
    402 “It is very proper that aliens or foreigners should be excluded from the
    office of President because it is the highest and most responsible office under
    the Constitution. At the time, however, of the adoption of the Constitution,
    many of the citizens in the States were natives of Europe, and had emigrated to
    this country and been naturalized in various States… It seemed unjust and
    ungrateful to exclude such persons form the office of President, and it was,
    therefore in order tho meet their case, provided that those who had been
    citizens of the United States at the time adoption of the Constitution should
    be eligible to the office of President, although they were not natural born
    citizens.”
    ALBANY
    LAW JOURNAL, A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS Volume 24: Irving
    Browne July 1881-January 1882
    Presidential
    Inability: “This provision excludes from the presidential office all persons of
    foreign birth, all persons under thirty-five years of age, and all persons who
    have not resided fourteen years within the United States.”
    I have continued to search, but I cannot find
    any examples from 1900-90 that are free to access. After that era all of the
    versions I find are of the mindset that natural born Citizen is synonymous with
    the term Citizen at birth. Without evidence from that one-hundred year period I
    can’t definitively identify at which point the education of the public went
    awry. I can state from my own experience having graduated in the mid 80’s that
    I was never taught nor under the impression that they were interchangeable.
    As previously stated there
    are three classes of Citizen in the United States:
    Presidents 8 of the first 9 were grandfathered by
    the Constitution
    1.Natural Born:Citizens born of citizen parents on U.S. soil.
    Presidents 8, 10-20 and 22-43 fall in to this category
    2.Citizens at Birth as
    defined by INA section 301: Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio,
    and Barack Obama all fall in to this category
    3.Naturalized Citizens: as
    defined by USIC code.
    There have
    been many candidates for President that have had questionable status but only
    two have been elected to Presidents thus to this point that their “natural born
    citizenship” has been in question. The first was the 21st President Chester
    A. Arthur; the second was the 44th President Barack H. Obama.
    With
    President Arthur, the question could never be answered because his personal
    records were destroyed in a fire after he left office.
    President
    Obama’s status conversation has been suppressed, and most discussions have been
    focused on his birthplace. That could be because his literary biography that
    was published from 1991 to 2007, and other statements in newspaper articles stated
    he was born in Kenya. His birthplace, while part of the issue, is not the easiest
    reason to disqualify him. The fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen
    neither at the time of his birth nor ever for that matter is the disqualifying
    factor and makes him a citizen at birth, but not a Natural Born Citizen.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      PeterLettkeman Peter, you’re defeating yourself. Look at this quote you posted from Lysander Spooner: 
      Q. May any person be chosen
      President of the United States?
      A.Not every person; none may
      be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when
      the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than
      thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for
      fourteen years.
      The
      unconstitutionality of slavery By Lysander Spooner: 1845

      No reference to the citizenship of the parents. It just says, “born in the United states.” Doesn’t say anything about the citizenship of the parents.

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman  It goes to my point that they child must be born in the United states. That piece doesn’t address parents but it addresses the fact that at the time they knew that you had to be born in the country to be a NBC and Presidential eligible.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano Congress has the authority to extend natural born citizenship however they wish. If they wish to declare persons born abroad to citizen parents to be natural born citizens, they can do so. And they have. See 8 U.S.C. section 1401.

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkeman They have the authority to determine naturalization requirements
          Art 1 Sec 8 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”
          naturalizationthe process of assuming or being granted citizenship of a country, usually a country other than that of the person’s origin.See also:

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanPatrickJColliano The operative word being “usually.” Not always. Also, the Supreme Court has upheld Congress’ right to determine who is a natural born citizen.
          And, can you believe it? It comes from Minor v. Happersett, the very same case you claim (dishonestly) produced a comprehensive definition of “natural born citizen.”
          From Minor v Happersett.
          Under the power to adopt a uniform system of
          naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien,
          being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United
          States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling
          within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the
          time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the
          United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States
          that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United
          States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
          Look at that! Congress is going around saying that children born to citizens of the United States “beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural born citizens.” And they did this “under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization.”
          So, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the right to decide who should be natural born citizens.
          A more recent example of the courts ruling in such a manner is the case of Markham Robinson v. Debra Bowen. Judge William Alsup of the Northern California District Court was ruling a challenge of Presidential eligibility, not of Barack Obama, but of John McCain.
          He wrote, “Article II [of the Constitution] left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth…it has always been left to Congress to define who may be a citizen by reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter).”
          But of course the birther lackwits are busily trying to push the lie that a citizen at birth is not necessarily a natural born citizen. Judge Alsup doesn’t agree with you.
          In that same ruling, when judging McCain’s eligibility, he wrote, “…Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403 (a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances were citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively making Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.”
          You’ll notice that Judge Alsup makes no distinction between citizen at birth and natural born citizen. That’s because there isn’t one.

        4. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman And in 1795 they corrected that language removing that statement which is only in the heading passage and not in the body. By the 1800’s had completely removed the whole act of 1790.

  17. PeterLettkeman says:

    My final presentations
    are these scenarios as to what the framers were talking about, and how we
    could/could have been usurped by a foreign monarchy today.

    An
    example of this would be if Prince Harry went to Italy on vacation and
    impregnated an American female. She has a baby and after the birth she
    announces to the world that she had Prince Harry’s child. Now we have a child
    that is an heir to the throne of England and by the standards put forth by
    those that disagree with me a person eligible to be our President.
    Also how are the citizenship statuses of any of the individuals:
    Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio any better than the
    potential citizenship of heirs to the thrown of Jordan listed below?
    Prince
    Hamzah (born 29 March 1980), Crown Prince from 1999 to 2004,
    Prince
    Hashim (born 10 June 1981), who has three daughters
    Princess
    Iman (born 24 April 1983)
    Princess
    Raiyah (born 9 February 1986)
    Ted and
    the gang are citizens at birth, but they are not a Natural Born Citizen. If they
    are eligible then the children of Queen Noor and King Hussein of Jordan would
    have been eligible in two more years if she had not renounced her American
    citizenship at the time of her marriage. They would have been born to a U.S.
    Citizen parent and a foreign national in a foreign country.
    Although I’m
    in total agreement that President Obama is not nor has ever been eligible to be
    President, this paper is in reference to the calls for Senator Ted Cruz to be
    President. I have presented all the evidence above as to why and how he, Bobby
    Jindal, Nikki Haley, nor Marco Rubio are eligible candidates for the office of
    the President of the United States.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      PeterLettkeman Prince Harry could also come to the United States, impregnate a girl here, and claim the child after it was born on U.S. soil, and quite unambiguously a NATURAL BORN U.S. Citizen under the 14th Amendment, so what it your point?  According to English Common law of the 1780s BOTH scenarios result in natural born citizens.
      The Founders included the clause in the Article II in order to make it more difficult for someone with foreign loyalty to gain the office, but they weren’t so foolish to think they could guarantee against it.  It is a simple matter to game any known set of rules in order to find a scenario in which you might be able to beat their intent.  They could very easily have gone into elaborate detail in writing the qualifications for the office, but they did not.  That fact alone should tell you something.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      PeterLettkeman”An
      example of this would be if Prince Harry went to Italy on vacation and
      impregnated an American female. She has a baby and after the birth she
      announces to the world that she had Prince Harry’s child. Now we have a child
      that is an heir to the throne of England and by the standards put forth by
      those that disagree with me a person eligible to be our President.”
      An illegitimate child born to Prince Harry would NOT be heir to the throne of England. For one thing, Prince Charles, his father, is next. For another, Prince William is firstborn, therefore, he will succeed Prince Charles. After Prince William will come whatever child he has. The only way Prince Harry will succeed to the throne in the first place is if something happens to Prince William, and nothing happens to HIM before Charles dies.
      And even if Harry does succeed to the throne, he will be succeeded by his own legitimate heir. The Royal family generally takes a dim view of illegitimate children claiming to be heirs to the throne. This is why, when Queen Anne died, her illegitimate half-brother, James Stuart, did not succeed to the throne and England invited her cousin, the ridiculous German princeling who become George I, to rule over them instead.

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman You still miss the intent of my comment. So they get married and the child is legitimate. My point is still made that they child would be heir to the throne and eligible to be President in your eyes.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano Not really. If the child were born to Prince Harry, he would not be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. There were two exceptions to children born in the U.S. 1) Children born to foreign ambassadors would not be citizens of the U.S. if born on U.S. soil (of which Prince Harry would undoubtedly be considered), and 2) Children of hostile invaders.
          As Prince Harry would not be recognized as “under the jurisdiction of the U.S.” (even if he WERE in the U.S.), his child could not be a citizen.
          And even if it were so, so what? The Constitution does not take the perfect President by the hand and walk him into the White House. People still need to be responsible and consider their options. I doubt the people would elect someone if they thought that doing so would place under the British Empire.

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano  Ok,ay lets go back to my other example using the same people but the child is born in Canada. The child still meets the criteria that you guys have set forth to be a NBC and still eligible to be the heir to the throne. You doubt that people would elect someone eligible to the throne, but who would have thought that people would be asking for Arnold to be President. You make a large assumption that you know what the American public would do. Who would have thought that the American public would elect someone that had such a shady past in to the office of the President, but they elected President Obama… I deal with security clearance and access, and if someone came to me with his record they would have been turned down in a heartbeat. To head you off I will let you know that the President has ZERO security clearance vetting. His adjudication is done by the American electorate when they elect him.

        3. SunnydSmiles says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano  Give it up Patrick…SOME people will NOT accept FACTS and TRUTH…Some people cannot connect dots with LOGIC…THAT is why America is in the mess it is in!

        4. PeterLettkeman says:

          SunnydSmilesPeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianoI have connected the dots and you are right some of you will never connect the dots between the founders conversations and intent. Just as if we were discussing the 2nd Amendment. Some would say that the founders were not talking about everyone being the militia that it means the national guard or the military, but if you go back to the conversations had by the founders and those that were there at the Constitutional convention you would see that they did mean every man is the militia. I have shown the words of John Jay to George Washington, Ben Franklin to Mr. Dawes, references to the importance of John Jay, and finally impact that Vattels The Laws of Nations.The simple fact that the founders set about to grandfather themselves in to the ability to be President shows that they had no intent on letting anyone with divided allegiance in to that office. To not have more than one allegiance, the only way to come about that would be to be born in the country of parents who are it’s citizens. One born on foreign soil or with a foreign parent have more than one allegiance. It is so simple you yet so difficult for you guys to understand.
            I have run across Patrick in other conversations on this subject and
          his comments are of no consequence to me. I have spent the better part
          of 28 years defending the Constitution that I raised my right hand for, as my father and grandfather before him
          and I will continue to do it long after I leave the service of the
          military in what ever capacity it may be.

        5. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano I also did security clearances while in the Army, and held a Top Secret security clearance myself, SCI nomination, no less. You are NOT a person who determines whether or not someone else gets a security clearance. There is NO WAY such a person would reveal themselves as such on a public forum. A person who is the final arbiter would not reveal themselves on a public forum, as there are many, many applications for security clearances that are turned down. You would not make yourself open to any possible disgruntled rejects.
          You might be someone who does the interview, fills out the paperwork and submits the application, same as I was, but you are not the one to decide who gets it. Therefore, you simply don’t know if Obama would be approved or not.
          Please refrain from making claims you know nothing about.
          Actually, Arnold’s brief popularity comes as no surprise to me, and I’m not the least bit surprised that he was once considered a viable presidential candidate. He won the recall election as governor while having no political credentials whatsoever. An actor who became governor of California suddenly becoming President of the United States. Gee, that’s never happened before, has it? Cough, cough Ronald Reagan, cough, cough.
          So, who would have thought that Arnold would be considered a possible candidate for President? Actually, a lot of people who have even the vaguest understanding how celebrity works in this country.
          And again, because Prince Harry is royalty, he is never under the jurisdiction of a country he happens to be in, unless that country is the United Kingdom. A child born to him, if by some miracle he decides to marry an American commoner…remembering the abdication of Edward the VIII so he could marry a shrew from Baltimore, and was essentially disowned by the royal family for it…might produce a legitimate heir to the throne of England and a natural born citizen at the same time.
          However, in the United States, a child who is born abroad or taken from the U.S. during his infancy remains a natural born citizen…UNTIL his 21st birthday. Upon turning 21, he has a reasonable length of time to indicate that he wishes to retain his American citizenship.
          Usually, this is done by returning to the U.S.
          But let’s say that he inherits the throne of England at an early age, before he turns 21? Would the U.S. still consider him a natural born citizen?
          Normally, expatriation is voluntary, which is why parents cannot renounce citizenship for their minor children. However, it can also be forcibly removed due to international treaties.
          I doubt the U.S. government will make any claims on the King of England. Even if they did, the fact remains, he has return to the U.S. within a reasonable time of turning 21. If he doesn’t, his citizenship is considered renounced.
          So, how is the King of England going to return to the U.S. and resume his citizenship at age 21, and live in the U.S. for at least 14 years (the Constitution requires that the President live in the U.S. for at least fourteen years), then, when he’s old enough (35 years of age), run for President?
          To be blunt, you disgust me. You have absolutely no understanding of the laws of citizenship (and you have embarrassed yourself thoroughly with your rampant ignorance), yet you presume to decide who is and who isn’t a natural born citizen like you’re some kind of authority.
          You claim to know who qualifies for a U.S. security clearance, but such a person is prohibited from revealing themselves in public forums, so obviously, that’s a lie.
          Stop lying. Just. Stop. Lying.

        6. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkeman Yes I do currently as I have for over five years review and recommend for clearances, and yes I did say that on here and could care less about what you think about it. If I review someones paperwork whether it is for PRP or for any level of
          clearance I can make recommendations to the commander. If I find
          information that is derogatory I make a recommendation to the CC that he start a SIF and coordinate with the base security section for them to do so.   
            Being part of the vetting process is not classified nor speaking of it not allowed.  I am not in the Army so I don’t know how you do it over there or how and truthfully I don’t really care. Feel free to look thru DODM 5200.01 and let me know where you find that reference btw.
            As to my example of the heir to the throne of England you still don’t get it. The point is that the intent of the framers was to keep out foreign influence you can not understand my simple example. You want to make it about more than it is. With the wishy washy definition that you are attempting to put forward anyone that is an Sec 301 of the INA is eligible to be the President. You freely claim that an CAB is the same as an NBC. Maybe this link will clear it up for you. http://puzo1.blogspot.jp/search?updated-max=2013-07-19T23:07:00-04:00&max-results=5
            My knowledge of the citizenship issue is pretty in-depth. The fact that I disgust you is of no difference to me. I will continue to fight your type of disinformation with facts and the truth.

        7. SunnydSmiles says:

          PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano I agree Peter…..totally….

        8. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman *sigh* that is NOT TRUE! The ONLY way is if they are born abroad to US Territories or holdings….and to be blunter…YOU should be ASHAMED for trying to MISLEAD people! WHO died and made YOU the authority on everything of this nature? YOU have been GIVEN proof…GIVEN Explanations that SHOOT what you are saying to HELL, but are too damn HARD HEADED to LISTEN! Last Time…Ted Cruz is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS..No matter HOW much I like him!

        9. SunnydSmiles says:

          Oh, so YOU are the “authority” Patrick?? right………Got Documents proving it?? Got court rulings SAYING it? Those that know you are wrong would be glad to go take a look at em!

  18. PeterLettkeman says:
  19. OILDANCE says:

    Based on your limited understanding, there would be no need for the exception in the clause, now would there? Some of us learned these terms in civics class when schools used to teach it’s students. I remember this quite well. Even though it was a long time ago. Its really quite simple. Do you realize why the exception exists in the article? Let me show you, Here is the entire clause: 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.Here is the exception: “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,”At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, no one was a natural born citizen. George Washington wasn’t. He was born in Virginia, but his parents had been citizens of Great Brittain. THERE WEREN’T ANY AT THAT TIME! Now, in the clause itself there shows a distinct and concsious acknowledgement that there is some kind of difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” The question is do you have the mental desire to know what that is or do you just want to go on displaying your lack of knowledge?

    1. SunnydSmiles says:

      OILDANCE THANK YOU!!! SOME people just don’t GET IT!

      1. OILDANCE says:

        SunnydSmiles OILDANCE Oh, I think they get it, but they are doing everything they can to avoid it because they want whatever they want so the tactic is confuse, deflect, deny, lie, and many people are easily mislead.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          To be perfectly honest, I think both you and Sunny are liars, and aren’t
          ashamed of being liars. Your hatred of the president is such that you
          don’t even care that you’re liars.
          A natural born citizen simply
          means citizen at birth, and you know this. You also know that the U.S.
          has always held that ANYONE born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen,
          even if born to aliens.

        2. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano I know the history and our constitutional scholar and attorney lays it all out for you…..IF you are willing to actually look at history:  

    2. GregoryConterio says:

      OILDANCE Wow, and I supposedly am the one with a “limited understanding?”
      The reason for the clause was so as not to rule-out the eligibility of loyal patriots who had fought and bled for the cause of independence, but were not born in the colonies.
      I will ask again, if William Blackstone, one of the leading authorities on English Common Law wrote that children born to ONE PARENT outside of English territory were considered NATURAL BORN, how is it that the “universally accepted” definition you claim was “obviously” known by all the Founders required TWO parents?
      http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
      If Vattel’s writings were ALSO an influence on the Founders’ work on the Constitution, and his definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was different from that of English Common Law, which it was, how can you make the argument there was ONLY ONE, “universally known” definition for the term?
      So far you and all the others arguing on your side have ignored these well-documented, yet troublesome (for you) facts.  If you can answer these two simple questions satisfactorily, we can continue the discussion.
      What seems clear however is that the notion of a single, universally understood meaning of the term “natural born citizen” simply did not exist, based on the simple fact that the Founders are known to have been familiar with the work of both Blackstone and Vattel, who had DIFFERENT ideas of what a natural born citizen was.  NOPLACE have the Founders pointed to one definition or another and said THIS ONE, THIS IS THE ONE WE MEAN!  This CLEARLY means the Founders also knew this was not a precise term, but a Term of Art as I put it before, yet they deliberately used it anyway.  The KNOWN intent of the Founders when crafting Article II, based on their clear writings was to make it difficult for an individual of questionable loyalty to gain the presidency.  Anything else is speculation.  Speculation is not law, and quite rightly should carry little weight when considering matters of law.

      1. PatrickJColliano says:

        “Wow, and I supposedly am the one with a “limited understanding?” The
        reason for the clause was so as not to rule-out the eligibility of
        loyal patriots who had fought and bled for the cause of independence,
        but were not born in the colonies.”
        You are absolutely correct.
        The reason for the clause is that some of the founding fathers were not
        actually born in the tract of land that would come to be known as the
        United States, such as Alexander Hamilton…who might have become
        President were it not for his fatal confrontation with Aaron Burr.

        1. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano It wasn’t because they were born outside the country it was due to the fact that at the up till time of the adoption of the Constitution their were no natural born Citizens of the United States. And even if that was the case you just blew your own assumptions.
          So the clause was to allow for the founding fathers that were born outside the country is your statement. If that is the case then why grandfather them if they had intent of letting those born outside the United states be President???

    3. R C Jackman says:

      OILDANCE
      OILDANCE ventured: “At the time of the adoption of the
      Constitution, no one was a natural born citizen.”But the Declaration of Independence was in
      1776, and the Constitution in 1786; so, any person born of American citizen
      parents between those two dates would have been a ‘natural born citizen’.

      1. OILDANCE says:

        R C Jackman OILDANCE There’s that pesky little requirement of being 35 years old as well!

      2. SunnydSmiles says:

        R C Jackman OILDANCE NOT of the age of 35 ………..you forget that…

        1. R C Jackman says:

          SunnydSmiles R C Jackman OILDANCE Correct!  Natural-Born, but not old enough to be eligible.

  20. OILDANCE says:

    You will find all kinds of rampant misinterpretation of the real meaning of a Natural Born Citizen because TPTB want you to be confused. The US code from 1940 not once refers to the meaning of a natural born citizen. It refers to citizens by birth. They are two different things. Vattel’s Law of Nations rom 1758 defines the term. It isn’t rocket science. As with religion, there are those who wish to deceive. It is easy to deceive a willing people who want to believe what they wish to be true. Ted Cruz was born a citizen. By virtue of his mother, he is a citizen and it was by birth. But by virtue of the fact that his father was a Cuban citizen and by virtue of the fact that he was born in Canada, Mr. Cruz has multiple citizenships all by virtue of his birth. None of those by the way allow him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. What part of this do people keep getting confused about. Read Vattel’s Law of Nations. He spells it out in Book 1 Chapter XIX section 212. That was the primary source our founders used in addition to the Bible. Know the truth and try to promote truth not politcal expediency!

    1. SunnydSmiles says:

      OILDANCE AMEN!

    2. GregoryConterio says:

      OILDANCE “The US code from 1940 not once refers to the meaning of a natural born citizen. It refers to citizens by birth. They are two different things.”
      As I said before, if that is the case, then it should be an easy matter for you to find the writings or case law which demonstrate the difference.  Once you provide such evidence, I am quite willing to continue the discussion.  But simply saying it over and over does not make it so.

      1. OILDANCE says:

        GregoryConterio OILDANCE It’s called common sense, but I think  covered it.

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          OILDANCE GregoryConterio Then it should be REALLY easy for you to find it, and point it out for all of us.  I have already provided documentation of legal opinion saying the two terms DO mean the same thing.  Find me something more authoritative that says they are not.

        2. OILDANCE says:

          GregoryConterio OILDANCE You know there is a difference between lawful and legal.  The legal system you put all your faith in gave us Roe vs Wade and the “Affordable Health Care Act”.  That doesn’t make them right or lawful.  I know the meaning of the terms as the founders intended them to be.  You know it and I know it and so does anyone with a brain.  The Truth is the Truth and the Truth divides. 

        3. OILDANCE GregoryConterio So was it the Founders’ intent that a man like Ted Cruz not be president?

    3. PatrickJColliano says:

      OILDANCE Stupidity on steroids. At the time the Constitution was written, there were three English translations of Vattel, none of which used the term “natural born citizen.”
      The Supreme Court deciding Wong Kim Ark plainly stated that “natural born,” like many terms from the Constitution — bill of attainder, habeas corpus, high crimes and misdemeanors, ex post facto, and others — comes to us from English common law, and therefore the Framers of the Constitution intended “natural born” as defined by English common law.
      Please refrain from discussing things you have no knowledge of.

      1. OILDANCE says:

        PatrickJColliano OILDANCE Your reference states the following which again only references who is a citizen:
        P. 20.
        “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. “

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          OILDANCE PatrickJColliano Thank you. You just proved my point.

        2. OILDANCE says:

          PatrickJColliano OILDANCE No, I proved my point.  But I guess you don’t understand.  That entire case is devoted to explaining who is a citizen.  It doesn’t attempt to clarify differing types.  I would compare Natural born citizen to this:  If two parents of the same race have a child, that child is also the same race.  If two parents of different races have a child, the child is of mixed race. Therefore that is why the term “natural” was used.  If parents of two different citizenships have a child, that child has mixed citizenships and therefore that child would have dual citizenship.  I am done talking with you because you have turned to being mean spirited and nasty.  Have a wonderful life.

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          OILDANCE PatrickJColliano That’s fine. As for being “mean spirited and nasty,” I admit that’s a failing of mine. I don’t like liars. I don’t like people who try to disinform the American people and make up facts as they go along.
          The term “natural born” first appeared in English common law 150 years before Vattel wrote Law of Nations. Notice there are two types of citizens, “natural born” and “naturalized.”  The term “natural” refers to their “natural” habitat. It is their home, their stomping ground. The idea of citing the laws of nature to define man-made political boundaries is a self-evident absurdity.
          A natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen, someone who is born “natural” to the United States, as opposed to someone who is “naturalized,” or “made natural” to the United States.
          You refuse to even consider Wong Kim Ark, because you know it proves you wrong. It plainly that in England, a child born in the jurisdiction is “natural born,” even if born to aliens. And the U.S., according to the Supreme Court, has always observed “the same rule.”
          It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

        4. OILDANCE says:

          PatrickJColliano OILDANCE I could just as easily call you a liar.  Your “interpretation” simply isn’t the same as mine.  I could call you many names and insult you as well, but I won’t.  Everything I read in Kim Wong Ark does nothing to support your interpretation.  I don’t like liars either.  I am not a liar.  I speak the truth as meant in the founding of this nation.  There is a reason for it and we are witnessing what happens when our POTUS has been usurped by an ineligible and most likely foreign plant.  You simply do not understand the underlying concept of citizenship being conferred first and foremost by our parents.  That’s typical of the liberal mind who wants the children to be given over to the government for rearing!

      2. ForLiberty says:

        PatrickJColliano OILDANCE OH really??? I don’t think you’ve done your homework here.  This from Chapter XIX of Vattel’s work: 
        “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
        Wanna change your comment?

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty PatrickJColliano OILDANCE No, I don’t want to change my argument. The idea that the Framers of the Constitution used common law terminology repeatedly throughout the Constitution, but that they intended a particular term from Vattel without telling us this, is too ridiculous for words.
          I’ll have you know that “natural born” appeared in English common law for the first time in 1608…150 years before Vattel’s Law of Nations was ever written. And Vattel NEVER used the term “natural born citizen.” Never.
          Can you see the Framers of the Constitution writing this sacred document, using terms that are only defined in common law…terms like “ex post facto,” “bill of attainder,” “high crimes and misdemeanors,” “habeas corpus,” and “militia.” But for this one term, “natural born,” they’re saying, “Oh, we don’t want common law for this term. For all the other terms, yeah, we want to use common law, but for “natural born,” we’re going to use Vattel,” even though no English translation of Vattel at the time even used the term “natural born.”
          But those framers, who apparently enjoy playing games with us, “Yeah, that’s it. We’re going to use Vattel for the definition of natural born, even though no translation of Vattel uses the term ‘natural born,’ and even though every other undefined term in the Constitution is plainly taken from common law. Yeah, that’s it. We’ll mess with them.”
          And furthermore, the Supreme Courts that presided over Minor v. Happersett and United States v Wong Kim Ark BOTH agreed that “natural born” is defined in common law, NOT Vattel.

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          And NO, I will not change my comment. What I said was absolutely true.

          The
          definition that birther liars claim was intended by the founding fathers is found in
          Book I, Chapter 19 § 212, and is summed up in one sentence, which
          reads in the original French, “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux
          qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
          Prior
          to and at the time that the Constitution was framed, there existed
          three English translations of Vattel’s Law of Nations. These were
          London: 1759, London: 1769, and New York: 1787. All three of these
          English versions translated “Naturels ou indigènes” as “natives
          or indigenes.” “Naturels” became “natives” and “indigènes”
          was left untranslated. Subsequent English versions were released in
          Dublin: 1792, London: 1793 and New York: 1796. Like the earlier
          English translations, “Naturels ou indigènes” was translated as
          “natives or indigenes.”
          No translation of Vattel used “natural born citizen” until 1797, then years after the Constitution was written and adopted.

          “Indigenes” does not mean “natural born citizen.”
          The French expression for “natural born citizen” is “citoyen de naissance.”

        3. ForLiberty says:

          So what you failed to address was that I clearly called you on your claim that it was not used in Vattel’s work. You continues to say Vattel didn’t use the term, but I just cited itfor you. I’ll tell you what you told others…..stop lying:)

        4. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty Vattel didn’t use the term. He wrote in French and he used the term “indigenes.” And the first six translations of Vattel left that term untranslated. And no translation of Law of Nations used the term until ten years after the Constitution was written, and it’s a bad translation, because the term for “natural born citizen” is NOT indigenes. It’s Citoyens de naissance.
          Stop lying. Just. Stop. Lying.

        5. ForLiberty says:

          so now you are equivocating eh? At first it was not translation used the term, now it was used in 1797….sorry can’t take that argument seriously sir. Vattel was used regularly from 1780 on in the colonies for education. Additionally, you can read what he had to say about natural born citizen here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2246&chapter=212459&layout=html&Itemid=27

        6. ForLiberty says:

          Patrick, again, I called you on it and then you equivocate, instead of simply saying, I misspoke and yes the term was used in the translation. You sir, need to stop lying.

        7. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty No, I’m not equivocating. You’re just lying. I explained it all above. Did you bother to read it? I am telling you that the term Vattel used, indigenes, is not accurately translated as “natural born citizen.” It’s Citoyens de naissance. Yes, translations use the term “natural born citizen,” but those didn’t appear until ten years after the Constitution was written (and 30 years after Vattel’s death).
          I can see that you’ve been shown up, and you’re too embarrassed to admit it, so you’re resorting to trolling, because you know you’ve been trounced.
          Stop lying. Just. Stop. Lying.

        8. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty And you haven’t read the post. I said Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen,” which in the French (which is the language Vattel wrote in) is citoyens de naissance.  Vattel used the term “indigenes.”

        9. ForLiberty says:

          again, Patrick I wasn’t the one that said what you said and everyone can read it. I’m far from embarrassed. You said there were three english translations at the time of the writing of the constitution and none of them used “natural born citizen.” You’ve been asked for source of that. Peter asked you and now I do. I’ve given you the link for the translation that demonstrates a translation that did use it and Peter pointed to John Jay’s use of it. The only one pulling a fast one is you Patrick.

        10. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty For either one of you? No. I will not supply the information. Perhaps I will post about it tomorrow or the next day.  You have computers which presumably have search engines. So, find it.
          It wouldn’t do you any good if I did share it with you, given your willingness and capacity to lie about someone’s clear words.

        11. ForLiberty says:

          LOL, nice evasion Patrick

        12. PeterLettkeman says:

          You won’t or you can’t?  I have searched many times in the last five 
          years and the link that I posted is the only version that I can find
          that has been translated in to English. I think that you are quoting
          someone else  work and taking it as a definitive source.

        13. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkeman Won’t.
          For you or for liberty? No. I have come just now to realize that neither one of you are honest in this discussion. You refuse to even consider Wong Kim Ark, which I have posted about in length. You have obviously never read the case, and do not intend to.
          On other forum, when someone who understood the facts of what makes a natural born citizen was being asked about something he had shared earlier, he replied, “Sorry, I don’t engage insane birthers.”
          I now understand what he means. You have been shown ample evidence in my posts of Wong Kim Ark, and the fact that birthers have lost EVERY case and EVERY ballot challenge. You are batting zero for over 400 cases. That’s quite an impressive loss. You know perfectly well that you’re on the wrong side of this issue, but your inability to admit you’re wrong prevents you from accepting that fact.
          Why does no judge agree with you? Oh, I know. It’s because they’re just part of the conspiracy, right?
          Why does NO attorney in the country, other than a handful of insane birthers, agree with you? Well, it’s just because all those other attorneys and every judge in America is just corrupt and dishonest, right?
          It couldn’t possibly be that you’re actually wrong, could it?

        14. PatrickJColliano says:

          And besides, if you weren’t so lazy, you’d HAVE your answer. Or at least a reason to believe what I’m saying.
          One of the things I’ve noticed about birthers…is that they NEVER read ANY of the court cases that the big cogs in the birther movement push. For instance, The Venus.
          You cited it, Peter, in one of your posts. But did you read it? Nope. You accepted what birthers TOLD you about it, but wouldn’t DREAM of actually seeing for yourself.
          For your information, the quote used in The Venus is from the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Marshall.
          From the dissenting opinion of The Venus, by Chief Justice Marshall:
          “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.”
          Look at that! It’s Vattel’s quote. And notice, the term “indigenes” is untranslated, like I said. NOT translated as natural born citizen.
          You COULD go and find this court case of The Venus for yourself and read the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. But you’re not going to do that, are you, Peter? Of course not! You just relied upon what birthers TOLD you about it!
          Pretty funny, considering you just accused me of not having any references but relying upon someone else’s assertions without researching them for myself.
          Gee, isn’t that exactly what YOU’RE doing with these easy to find court cases? Not reading them, just relying on what birthers tell you?
          HYPOCRITE!

        15. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanCould it be that those that have attempted have done so on the incorrect premise? How about that fact that there have been judges affraid to take on the issue because they have had people like you passing disinformation? Although they have not won a case does not mean that eventually we will find a judge with a backbone to address the issue. Maybe the judge in Alabama will look at evidence prior to making a judgement.
          As to the Wong Kim Ark. He was a citizen per the 14th Amendment. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-obama-administration-quietly-scrubbed-the-foreign-affairs-manual-in-august-2009-to-expand-the-holding-of-wong-kim-ark/

        16. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty  hahahahahhahaha….TOOO FUNNY….I am about SURE Patrick is a Liberal now because he just did EXACTLY what they do…..Argue with someone and when asked for proof. of his argument….tells YOU to find it yourself….(because he knows there isn’t any)

        17. SunnydSmiles says:

          That is BECAUSE he does NOT need to translate it…he is TELLING you what it means! or in other words, the DEFINITION of that word.  The natives or
          indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

      3. JesseTMims says:

        PatrickJColliano OILDANCE  Re ”
        At the time the Constitution was written, there were three English
        translations of Vattel, none of which used the term ‘natural born
        citizen.'”
        Whether the English versions used the exact phrase “natural born citizen” or not is moot.
        Vattel said,  “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens;” which translate.google.com/ says means “The natives, or indigenes are those born in the country of citizen parents” in English.
        If you enter “indigenes” by itself, you get the English word, “indigenous;” which http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous defines as follows:
        “1: produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally
        in a particular region or http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=100510461 <indigenous plants> <the indigenous culture>
        2:  http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=100510461, http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=100510461
        If you scroll down a bit further, you will find that Merriam/Webster also says  “indigenous” originates from the Latin noun, indigena; which means “native.”
        There
        is simply no way to logically argue that the Framer’s original intent
        was anything other than that “a natural born citizen is one who is born
        on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents” and that Vattel’s book was
        the reference book of the laws of nations they used when phrasing the
        natural born citizen clause of  requirements for the office of
        president.

        Therefore, even if the English versions used the words, “indigenes,”  “Indigenous,” “native,” or some other similar terms meaning the same thing as “natural,” the Framer’s intent has been proven to be the same.

    4. ForLiberty says:

      OILDANCE exactly!  and PH backs it up with the historical data from our founding.  

      1. PatrickJColliano says:

        ForLiberty OILDANCE No, she does not. She does an elaborate song and dance claiming that Vattel was just so almighty important to the Founding fathers, but she does not PROVE that Vattel was referenced over a SINGLE POINT of the Constitution. Not a single point.

        1. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty OILDANCE If someone Brought the Founding Fathers back and THEY explained it to you, you STILL would not believe it…..By the way….You used the term “Birther” to slur people….I never said Ovomit was not born in Hi….I could care less if he were born in a MANGER…His father was a BRITISH citizen….and HE was by birth. The ONLY thing you did by using “Birther” was show me that you are NOT a Conservative, and you are just trying to CONFUSE people that have not studied up on this…..

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano ForLiberty OILDANCE LOLOLOL! You cry profusely about the term “birther,” but in the same SENTENCE you call the President Ovomit.
          “Waaaah! He’s calling names! That’s so mean! And I hate that stupid Ovomit!”
          Hypocrite.

  21. OILDANCE says:

    WesternFreePress  Ted Cruz is awesome. He isn’t eligible to be president, but he would be a great leader in any other number of positions. Remember not to put faith in man, put faith in the rule of law and that we one day start following the constitution to the letter. The problem we are having today is we have shredded the constitution, confused it’s true intent. Look at how Obama has done. He is the deceiver in chief. Men are easily swayed to darkness no matter how wonderful they seem. I am not doubting Ted Cruz at this point, but he would certainly impress me if he stood for the real meaning of the term “natural born citizen”. It is what it is despite all your efforts to confuse and divert.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      OILDANCE WesternFreePress The trouble is, according to your “theory,” Cruz is not currently eligible to serve in office at all.  The fact is, if he is not a natural born citizen, he is not a citizen at all, because he has never been naturalized. 
      Neither the Constitution, nor the law recognizes anything other than natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens.
      And at some point, you need to get-off this conceit you suffer.  Nobody is trying to “confuse or divert” you.  We (who collectively question the notion of ineligibility you put forth) don’t have any hidden agenda.  This is an honest debate, and despite protestations to the contrary, you do not have a monopoly on the truth.  Whether or not the legal definition of natural born citizen is a reasonable one, or even a good idea is an entirely separate question from whether or not it is the duly constituted and recognized law.  Denigrating the people who disagree with you, and simply denying or ignoring facts and reasonable interpretations that are at odds with your view is not going to win you any arguments, much less any converts.  Ironically, such insistence diverts from the greater issue, one which you and I probably agree on entirely, and that is turning our country away from the disastrous path the left has set us upon.

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        GregoryConterio OILDANCE WesternFreePress He had to have been naturalized to get a U.S. Passport for his family to bring him back in to the U.S.. The papers would have had to been submitted to the consulate in Canada.

        1. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterio OILDANCE WesternFreePress I say that and then I think back and we had an open border with Canada at the time but his mother and father would have had to been in Canada on a work visa.

        2. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio OILDANCE WesternFreePress 
          I’m sorry, but that is utterly ridiculous.  I know a little about this first-hand: my wife is a naturalized citizen.  I know exactly the process she had to go through to become naturalized.
          One did not require a passport to go back & forth to Canada (or Mexico, which I have done personally many times!)  in the 1970s.  And if Cruz was naturalized, there would be a PUBLIC RECORD of it, which you could look-up and post here for all of us to read!
          Aside from which they do not naturalize babies!  Among other things, you must take an oath as a naturalized citizen.  When was the last time any minor was allowed to take a legally recognized oath?  Absurd!

  22. PatrickJColliano says:

    All right, folks. I can some of you have drank deeply of the birther Kool-Aid and have been well and truly disinformed about the meaning of “natural born.”
    If you can slog through this post, which will probably be long, but as short as I can make it, I promise the meaning of “natural born” will be made clear to you by the time you finish.
    In 1898, the Supreme Court heard a case that settled the citizenship once and for all, of a man named Wong Kim Ark, who was born in this country to Chinese aliens. They were in the country legally, had a business, but still aliens. Due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, they could not become citizens, even if they wanted to. When Wong Kim Ark was about 17 years of age, he made a trip to his parents homeland (China) and returned several months later, without incident. Then, at age 21, he made a second trip. This time, upon his return, he was ordered detained on the ship by the Collector of Customs, who maintained that he could not be a U.S. citizen because his parents were aliens and he was Chinese, and could not, under the Chinese Exclusion Act, be admitted to the U.S.
    Wong Kim Ark, now under arrest for the despicable crime of coming home after extended vacation, contest this and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in his behalf with the Northern California District Court.
    While Judge Morrow explained at length why he personally felt that it makes far more sense to have citizenship follow the citizenship of the parents, he also realized that he was not able to overrule the higher courts. Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen of the United States from birth, and Judge Morrow ordered his release.
    But Customs wasn’t done. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case.
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark was divided into six sections. The first section made the commonsense observation that the Constitution uses the terms “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen of the United States” but does not define the terms. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, the understanding of these terms will come from English common law. This is not new or unprecedented. The framers of the Constitution were all British subjects just 11 years prior to the framing of the Constitution, and they used terms from English common law when writing the Constitution. (Examples include “militia,” “bill of attainder,” “habeas corpus,” “ex post facto,” “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and, yes, “natural born.”)
    Nowhere, but nowhere does this ruling even hint that Vattel was the source of the Founding Fathers’ understanding of “natural born.” Vattel is not mentioned even once in the ruling of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Pretty interesting, considering so many of you think that Vattel is the source of the term “natural born.”
    From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
    The Constitution of the United States, as originally
    adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and
    “natural-born citizen of the United States.”…
    The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of
    these words… In this as in other
    respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
    principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of
    the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, , 422; Boyd v. United States, , 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, .
    The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be
    understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley,
    J., in Moore v. United States, , 274.
    In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

    “…The interpretation of
    the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the
    fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English
    common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
    Got it? The Constitution uses the terms “natural born citizen,” but doesn’t define it. Therefore, they must resort to English common law to determine the intent of the term. Not Vattel. Vattel isn’t even considered. Not the Fourteenth Amendment. English common law.
    In the next section, the Supreme Court cited noted authorities on English common law, including Alexander Cockburn, who was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of England, appointed by Queen Victoria. Another noted authority was noted British jurist and constitutional theorist of the day, Albert Venn Dicey.
    Now, there are two points here that are very relevant to our discussion.
    From United States v. Wong Kim Ark (italics added).
    Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:
    By the common law of England, every person born
    within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of
    foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were
    settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English
    subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were
    excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them),
    or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any
    part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been
    given to descent as a source of nationality.
    Notice, that every child born in England, even to aliens just passing through, was considered a British subject from birth.
    Now, I know that some of you want to claim that a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen aren’t the same thing.
    Wanna bet? (see first reply to this post)

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      From United States v. Wong Kim Ark (italics in original):

      Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of
      the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in
      1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being
      printed below in italics:
      “British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown.
      “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a
      British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is
      within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown.
      “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject
      to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the
      nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a
      natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
      Notice, “natural born British subject means a British subject who has become a British subject from the moment of his birth.”
      Remember,
      the Supreme Court had determined that to ascertain the framers’ meaning
      of “natural born citizen of the United States,” the Constitution “must
      be interpreted in the light of the common law.
      And the common law
      just said that “natural born” refers to anyone and everyone who became a
      British subject at the moment of birth, and applied even to children
      born of aliens while in England. See where this is headed?
      From United States v Wong Kim Ark:

      It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England
      for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this
      country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the
      dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
      allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the
      power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every
      child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
      the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State
      or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child
      was born.
      III. The same rule was in force in all the English
      Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of
      Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to
      prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
      It’s
      “game over” for you birthers. You know that a child born in the U.S.,
      even to aliens, is considered a natural born citizen. Though it’s been
      my experience that birthers, even though they cannot refute this ruling,
      will never admit they’re wrong.
      And here’s some other noted authorities on the subject of what makes a natural born citizen.
      James
      Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” who is the primary author of the
      main body of the Constitution and the sole author of the Bill of
      Rights.
      “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
      Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from
      parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is
      what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to
      investigate any other.”
      Notice, that James Madison, who wrote the
      Constitution, has said that place of birth is the most certain
      criterion when it comes to establishing allegiance. And it is
      unnecessary to investigate any other criterion, including citizenship of
      the parents.
      But, you know, what does James Madison know about
      the intent of the Constitution? He just wrote it, that’s all. I’m sure
      you birthers think you understand the intent so much better than James
      Madison.
      Here’s one for the rocket scientist who claimed that a “native born citizen” doesn’t mean “natural born citizen.”
      From Blackstone’s Commentaries:
      “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,…A very respectable political writer makes the
      following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption
      of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be
      divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within
      the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
      Oh, so
      the President has to be a native born citizen? Is that right? Gee, I
      could have sworn someone tried to tell me that a native born citizen is
      not a natural born citizen.
      Here’s one from William Rawle, from
      his work “A View of the Constitution of the United States.” William
      Rawle was District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, hand-picked
      by George Washington himself, at the time when the United States was
      only 14 states large and the nation’s capital was Philadelphia.
      “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories
      or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural
      born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the
      rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
      Every person born in the United States…whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen.
      Like I said, birthers, it’s “Game Over” for you.

      1. ForLiberty says:

        PatrickJColliano I’ll go back further than yourself.  Let’s go back to the days prior to the Constitution, not years later.  This is written by a constitutional scholar and attorney.  

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLibertyPatrickJColliano I doubt Publius Huldah is a constitutional attorney, if that’s her real name. Nor do I know if she’s a Constitutional Attorney. Or if that’s even her real name. I cannot find what state she is barred in or anything about her bona fides.
          But it doesn’t matter. She is one attorney — IF she even IS an attorney. The three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals agrees with MY interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark decision and arrives at the same conclusions I did.
          From Ankeny and Kruse v. Daniels: ”
          Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [United States v.] Wong Kim Ark,we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
          Moreover, this court ruling was cited in at least TEN ballot challenges. Judge after judge after judge after judge agrees with this ruling. It’s a little ridiculous to pretend that these judges don’t know what they’re talking about, while Publius Huldah, whatever she is, knows so much better than they do.

        2. ForLiberty says:

          Patrick, yeah she uses a pen name. The issue is what she puts forward, not her. however, i’m not arguing that the court has provided a certain ruling. What I’m arguing is what was the original intent and the Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn’t bother to deal with the original intent of the founders. Second, it’s one thing for a judge to study case law and base their ruling on that. It’s quite another to actually study constitutional law and then base your ruling on that and not precedent. That is the difference. I suppose if you cite something long enough then people will believe it:) Seems I have heard that from somewhere else:)

        3. ForLiberty says:

          furthermore, you are citing the issue of born within borders. Cruz wasn’t born in the borders of the US:)

        4. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty Might sound more persuasive if you could find even ONE judge who agrees with you.

        5. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty Doesn’t matter. According to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, natural born citizen is anyone who gains citizenship at birth.

        6. ForLiberty says:

          Patrick, you cited the ruling. I merely pointed out Cruz wasn’t born in the US. Are you saying he was?

        7. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty Oh, you’re asking me now? That’s a nice change. Usually you just claim I said things I never said and keep spamming the board with your lies.
          No, I said Cruz is a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is anyone who gains their citizenship at birth, according to United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Since Cruz’s mother was born in Baltimore and has held U.S. citizenship her entire life, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. And he would be a natural born citizen no matter WHERE he was born, due to his mother’s citizenship.

        8. ForLiberty says:

          will Roy Moore do?

        9. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty for what?

        10. ForLiberty says:

          you wanted 1 judge

        11. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty And I’m afraid the issue is EXACTLY who Publius Huldah is. I’d like to check her credentials and find out if she is a lawyer like she claims, and what she specializes in. You claimed she was a Constitutional lawyer, but you have no proof of this.
          Mario Apuzzo puts his name out there. Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, and Leo Donofrio (when he WAS a lawyer). What is Publius Huldah so afraid of? If she’s defending the Constitution, like she says, she should be PROUD to say who she is.

        12. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty And what did he have to say about natural born citizenship?
          By the way, Roy Moore is not the one deciding the case. He is merely the chief justice of the nine-judge panel of the Alabama Supreme Court. If you’re talking about a case going before the Alabama Supreme Court, then he is merely ONE out of nine.
          When has Roy Moore ruled that he agrees that a natural born citizen is something other than a citizen at birth?

        13. ForLiberty says:

          I suppose you would say the same thing about Hamilton and Madison who used the pen name Publius.

        14. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty At least I know who they are, and I can verify the bonafides of Hamilton and Madison. I cannot verify this Publius Huldah.

        15. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Well Patrick, as you told us, I’m not going to provide you with that information.  It’s easily found on the internet.  I suppose I could chide you about “being too lazy” to find it, but I won’t :)  You’ll just have to do some digging for yourself:)

        16. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Well, yes now you do, but then, it sort of defeated the purpose to know.  In any instance, as I told you, if you do a little digging like you claim to be able to do, then you should have no problem verifying who PH is.

  23. ForLiberty says:

    I suggest a Constitutional scholar to actually bring this into perspective.  This is really what was going on with the Founders.  They didn’t leave it open for congress to determine.  That is nonsense!  They didn’t define it because it was readily known what it was!  Just like I don’t have to define pizza when I reference it.  Here’s an article that actually deals rightly with what was meant by natural born citizen by an actual attorney:  http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/what-our-framers-knew-the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      ForLiberty I do agree that the Founding Father didn’t need to define “natural born citizen,” because they knew what it was. But I disagree that Publius Huldah, if that’s even her real name, is any authority.
      As the Supreme Court noted in Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of the term is found in common law. Not Vattel (who never used the term “natural born citizen”). The Constitution is peppered with terms taken from common law, such as “ex post facto,” “bill of attainder,” “high crimes and misdemeanors,” “militia” and ” habeas corpus,” just to name a few.
      It’s a little ridiculous to claim, “Oh, the Constitution used a lot of common law terms. But in this common law term, “natural born citizen,” which existed in English common law 150 years before Vattel’s Law of Nations was even written, they intended us to use Vattel. Yeah, that’s it. Everything they took from English common law, then meant the common law term, but for “natural born,” they meant for us to use Vattel, even though Vattel never used the term natural born citizen.”

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        PatrickJCollianoForLiberty You continually dismiss the validity of Vattel and his influence on the Constitution. You never cite any examples of anyone stating that he had no influence yet I give you proof not in my words but the words of the founding fathers themselves. That is the difference in your proof and mine. Here it is again so you can look at it one more time. I provide you the links so you can look at them yourself. 
        Some
        will say that the founding fathers used the definition of natural born subjects
        from British common law.I find it odd
        that a group of people trying to create a brand new country, separate
        themselves from a King and country that they were subjects of would use those
        laws exclusively to draft their new Constitution. They also did not use the
        word subject but used the word citizen to describe this nation’s people.
        Was Vattel a favorite book of some of the
        founders, and may have been influential in the development of our Constitution?
        Judging by this from Benjamin Franklin to
        Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December, 1775 it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you
        have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the
        circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law
        of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our
        own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts
        Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our
        Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and
        have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
        From , p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the time of the American
        Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most
        authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and
        Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time.
        Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his
        predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law of Nature upon
        International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American Journal of
        International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.Also during this period who was a member of the Congress Franklin spoke
        of? It was John Jay a Delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-76 from New
        York. .” If they received a copy of
        it in 1775 then by the time the Constitution was adopted it had been in their
        hands for over a decade.
        The framers sought to prevent the influence
        of foreign governments or monarchies and wrote in to the Constitution the Natural Born Citizen clause ” 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.”
        This clause and its wording were a direct
        result of a conversation in letters, specifically this between and George Washington.
        For those that do not know of John Jay and
        his importance in the drafting of the Constitution I present the
        following.John Jay, Alexander Hamilton
        and James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly known
        as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of New York why
        they should support the ratification of the Constitution. John Adams later said
        in reference to who was the most influential proponent of constitutional reform
        that Jay was
        After seeing the draft language by Alexander
        Hamilton of the requirements to be President, John Jay wrote this in his letter
        to George Washington dated 25 July 1787. John Jay was an avid reader of
        Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law
        (1758).In this book the definition of
        what a “natural born Citizen” is can be found p. 101 in section
        212. “The natives, or natural-born
        citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
        Section 212 provides us with insight as to Jays wording of his letter back to
        Washington here “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
        Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any
        but a natural born Citizen.”

        1. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty  I don’t provide you with link to others works. I provide you links to the actual legal, .gov or actually pictures from the books that I pull from.

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty For those that say that the term natural born Citizen did not exist at the time. If that is the case how does it exist in the letter from John Jay to George Washington then subsequently exist in the Constitution?  “Well it doesn’t show up in till 1797 in the translation of The Laws of Nations.” Well how about this maybe John Jay translated it the same way that THE EDITOR did.

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Peter, your capacity to misunderstand is absolutely AMAZING! How did you ever make it out of high school…if you did make it out of high school?
          I never said “natural born citizen” didn’t exist at the time of the Founding Fathers. I said VATTEL never used it! And he didn’t.
          “Natural born” first appeared in English common law (in writing, at least) in Calvin’s Case, or Case of the Postnati, in 1608…which, by the way, is exactly 150 years before Vattel ever wrote “Law of Nations.”
          OF COURSE NATURAL BORN EXISTED! I never said it didn’t. I said that Vattel didn’t use it, and he didn’t. It existed in English common law!

        4. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanForLibertyI didn’t say you did. I have run across people who would say that as part of their argument. But the funny thing is you just stated that in a post above that the translation never had natural born Citizen until the 1797 translation. The other thing is I can’t find any other copies of Vattlel’s The Laws of nations that are translated to verify your statement that it never existed. Care to share a link? By the way insulting me doesn’t bother me it just proves your juvenile.

        5. ForLiberty says:

          Peter, I agree. Patrick is thick with insults, but equivocates when called on his statements.

        6. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty No, you’re being dishonest. I never said that Vattel’s words were never translated as “natural born citizen.” I said he never used the term “natural born citizen.”
          Please stop lying about my statements, thanks. It just proves to me that you know you’ve lost. I said Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen,” and he didn’t. The term he used is “indigenes,” which has no English equivalent. Natural born citizen is “citoyens de naissance.”

        7. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty If it is interpreted in to another language as natural born Citizen, then he used it by the interpretation.

        8. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty  Still waiting for the links to the other translated versions that you keep saying exist but I can not find.

        9. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanForLibertyhttp://theobamafile.com/obamanaturalborn.htm

        10. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJCollianoForLibertyI beg to differ……….
          Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in
          international law.  This was primarily the result of his great foundational
          work, which he published in 1758.  His monumental work — The Law of
          Nations —  applied a theory of natural law to international relations. 
          His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations
          was especially influential in the United States.
          The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his
          principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U.
          S. Declaration of Independence.  In particular, his definitions in terms of
          Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his
          rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered
          authoritative in the United States.
          Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and
          defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution.  It is really
          not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the
          primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution.  Emmerich
          de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a
          defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. 
          The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the
          first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for
          the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase.  It
          nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of
          Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
          It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel,
          wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled
          CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD.  Quite clearly and
          explicitly it defines why Obama, can
          NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States.  Obama
          MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according
          to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

          “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
          country, of parents who are citizens.  As the society can not exist and
          perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children
          naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
          rights.  The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
          owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that
          each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
          becoming members of it.  THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF
          THE CHILDREN.”

        11. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano ForLiberty You cited a birther website? For an honest assessment of Vattel’s influence on the Constitution?
          LOL!

        12. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJCollianoSunnydSmilesForLibertyGuess what? I could care LESS what the site was….asshole….THIS is what I was looking for and it does NOT MATTER where I found it! It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel,
          wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled
          CITIZENS AND NATIONS, The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
          country, of parents who are citizens.  As the society can not exist and
          perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children
          naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
          rights.  The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
          owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that
          each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
          becoming members of it.  THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF
          THE CHILDREN.”

        13. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Goodness, you are vulgar woman, aren’t you?
          It just amazes me that you accept the idea that Vattel was supposedly this huge monumental influence on the Constitution? You embarrass yourself. You really do. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, because you obviously know NOTHING about what is in Vattel.
          Vattel doesn’t believe in freedom of speech, by the way. (Book 1 section 114).  Duuuuuh. But Vattel was just the most influential writer on the Constitution, huh?
          He also believed in an established religion, something that our Constitution has prohibited!  (Book 1, section 129) Duuuuuh! But Vattel was just the most influential writer when it comes to the Constitution.
          He also believed that the KING should be the head of the church! The KING? Just what country do you think we live in? It’s not the United States, I can assure you, if you think Vattel was so influential on our Constitution. (Book 1, section 141)
          According to Book one, section 176, he plainly states that ONLY nobility (which the U.S. does not have) and law enforcement are the ONLY ones who get to keep and bear arms.  Oh, that’s real Constitutional, huh?
          He also believes that women should be “procured” (in other words, kidnapped) from other nations. You still want to claim that you support Vattel? Book 2 section 122.
          You know absolutely NOTHING about Vattel, yet because someone claimed that Vattel is just sooooo high and mighty and important to the Constitution, and because you THINK he tells you what a natural born citizen is, you’re ready to embrace him.
          YOU HAVEN’T EVEN READ HIM! He’s a monarchist! He believes in royalty, which should be obvious.
          But you birthers just NEVER read anything. You let everyone TELL you what to think.

        14. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles ForLiberty  
          Patrick,

          Wrong dumb ass…as for “Vulgar” I will leave that to you and your demeaning displays. Your self importance and taking for granted that you are alone the authority on anything and everything people bring up here, just displays how stupid YOU really are. 
          People that believe they know EVERYTHING, know NOTHING. Those that REFUSE to see or examine a view other than their own, are not only limited in intelligence, but in character.

  24. PatriotTech says:

    I was actually surprised to see how the article mentioned one element very briefly… then mad dashed right past it. No one else bothered to look at it, focusing instead as if Cruz had been born in a US state or territory. I’m a big Ted Cruz fan, but here’s my question: is Canada officially a territory or “outlying possession” of the United States? PatrickJColliano , you seem to know a lot about this, perhaps you can help? Thanks!

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      PatriotTech PatrickJColliano Canada is no possession of the United States, but that doesn’t matter. Anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth is a natural born citizen. That’s all the term means and has ever meant. Ted Cruz is eligible.
      For a reference of what it takes to be considered a citizens at birth, just search for 8 U.S.C. section 1401.
      You’ll find a listing of what it takes to be considered a “national or citizen at birth,” which is a natural born citizen. EVERYONE who falls into one of those categories is a natural born citizen.
      Since according to paragraph g, a person need only one citizen parent who has lived in the U.S. for a year, Ted Cruz easily qualifies, as his mother is a lifelong citizen of the U.S., born in Baltimore and lived in the U.S. for her entire life prior to her temporary move to Canada.

      1. JesseTMims says:

        PatrickJCollianoPatriotTech
        said “Canada is no possession of the United States, but that doesn’t matter.
        Anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth is a natural born
        citizen. That’s all the term means and has ever meant. Ted Cruz is
        eligible.”
        That is not true. Cruz is NOT eligible! See my two posts above!

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          JesseTMims PatrickJColliano PatriotTech I did see your posts, and you’re wrong. The courts have ruled this, again and again and again, and will continue to rule this.
          You are simply incorrect, and the courts have proven this.

        2. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PatriotTech Patrick, you can stand there and spout your crap ALL  you want…YOU are WRONG. I am beginning to wonder if you are a PLANT to try to get people to believe  your nonsense….Makes sense…SEVERAL people have blown holes in the things you have said…yet you just keep going….and going…..it does NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT!!!!

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PatriotTech No one has refuted anything I’ve said. And when they hit arguments that make them uncomfortable, they just ignore them.
          Anything to say that refutes anything I’ve said about Wong Kim Ark? Nope.
          Anything about what the Indiana Court of Appeals said, that a natural born citizen is anyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents? Nope.
          Oooh, Vattel was so important. Yeah, he was real important. He believed that the government should establish a religion and the king should be head of it, and no one but nobility and law enforcement should keep and bear arms. Oh, yeah, real constitutional, that Vattel.
          /spit
          You disgust me.

        4. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles JesseTMims PatriotTech  GREAT! because people like YOU disgust ME! you have been SHOWN over and OVER again …Had LINKS to what people have said, yet you REFUSE to accept ANY opinion but YOURS…well, you know what they say about Opinions….They are like Assholes..Everyone has one…It is just that YOURS is wrong, and YOU are the asshole! and while you are spitting…spit on YOURSELF! TRASH!

        5. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PatriotTech  And yet the courts all agree with me. And the birthers have lost EVERY case. And no one’s been able to refute a single thing I’ve said. Nothing about Wong Kim Ark, nothing about Vattel and nothing about the Indiana court of appeals saying that a natural born citizen is anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the citizenship of the parents. A decision that’s so influential, it’s been cited in at least ten different ballot challenges, and birthers have lost every single ballot challenge and every case they brought to court.
          But somehow, you seem to think I’M being defeated on this board. ROFL! No one’s been able to refute a single thing I’ve said, and the courts have all agreed with me! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

        6. PeterLettkeman says:

          PatrickJCollianoSunnydSmilesJesseTMimsPatriotTechhttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/ This article from discusses all of what you say we are avoiding.

        7. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJCollianoSunnydSmilesJesseTMimsPatriotTechHey Nutcase…just following  part of the Left’s play book. you know what that is because you have been using it on your posts…demeaning, name calling, telling lies over and over again, thinking if you tell them enough people will believe them. For those that don’t, , try to make them look stupid…and if that does not work, call them names. Conservatives USED to take it from whack jobs like you, but NO MORE. As for the “Courts agreeing with you” I would LOVE to see proof IN WRITING stating that Courts AGREE with YOU. that will NEVER happen idiot…*l* YOU might agree with briefs and cases, but they DO NOT AGREE with YOU. That right there shows me and everyone else just how smart and important YOU think YOU are. Sorry…you are nothing..just another asshole with an opinion.

        8. ohhhdear says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PatriotTech  Sunny, ignore the jerk.  He just showed his true colors when he said that to you. He must be an  commie Obot here to spread disinformation.

        9. JesseTMims says:

          PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PatriotTech 
          As I said in an earlier post, the U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER cited any definition of natural born citizen other than  the one defined as the ONLY legal one in Minor v Happersett.
          While some state courts may have erroneously cited a different definition, state courts do not and cannot supersede decisions made by the Supreme Court.
          I’m sure you know this. Therefore, your continuing claims otherwise are simply dishonest.

        10. JesseTMims says:

          PatrickJCollianoJesseTMimsPatriotTech
          As I said in an earlier post, the U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER cited any
          definition of natural born citizen other than  the one defined as the
          ONLY legal one in Minor v Happersett.
          While some state courts
          may have erroneously cited a different definition, state courts do not
          and cannot supersede decisions made by the Supreme Court.
          I’m sure you know this. Therefore, your continuing claims otherwise are simply dishonest.

      2. SunnydSmiles says:

        PatrickJColliano PatriotTech  Patrick, The more you talk…the more you show how wrong you are…

      3. ToddKiergen says:

        PatrickJColliano PatriotTech Cruz holds dual citizenship and was NOT born on us soil. there’s more than enough precedence to knock that argument out of the water – he is foreign born and (technically) due to the fact that he never renounced his Canadian citizenship at 18 like he was supposed to NOT even a fully legal citizen – he is classed as a “dual citizen” under INS code

      4. ohhhdear says:

        PatrickJColliano PatriotTechJesseTMims Nope, wrong again, you are spreading disinformation and I believe you know that.  Cruz is not eligible, Rubio is not eligible and if Obama’s bc is true– — he is not eligible.  Just because someone is a citizen at birth does NOT make them a natural born citizen.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          ohhhdear PatrickJColliano PatriotTech JesseTMims Yes, it does. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

        2. RickBulow says:

          PatrickJColliano comtinue slappping the loudmouths (ohhhdear PatriotTech JesseTMims ) down #LikeABoss. You and I had talked about this in the past and we have the power to debunk and disprove them

  25. JesseTMims says:

    @ Greg Conterio…
    You are basing your claim that Cruz is eligible based on your opinion as follows: “…there is no distinction between the terms “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth.”  Legally speaking, both terms mean exactly the same thing.”
    Since a “citizen at birth” is the same as a “native citizen,” the truth is that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are NOT the same; and, current immigration law confirms that fact by showing a clear distinction between the two. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/
    Since the two terms can be proven to be separate and distinguishable according to current law, your ppremise is successfully destroyed along with the rest of your faulty conclusions. But, while I’m here, let me offer some additional information that your readers might find useful and interesting,
    Below you will find the true facts about the natural born citizen issue from the most reliable sources possible; INCLUDING the U.S. Supreme Court! All pertinent information here is backed up with links to the sources with much more detail than there is room for here.
    The two best Constitutional lawyers in America today are Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio. They have independently done the necessary research to learn the true definition of the term, “natural born citizen;” and, each has proved the LEGAL definition to be “one who is born on U.S. soil and born to two U.S. citizen parents. See links provided below. It’s so simple that you can apply that definition to any person on planet earth and determine if he/she is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the USA; as, long as you know their true birth details.
    Anyone who wishes to, can argue with these facts all they want to. But, the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, has held the above definition to be the LEGAL definition. Therefore, it is the law of the land; regardless, of whether or not you like it or whether or not it helps your preferred candidate.
    Leo Donofrio has also proved that the Congressional Research service (CRS); which, you used as a source, Mr. Conterio, deliberately sent misinformation about NBC to every member of Congress and also misquoted Supreme Court cases that legally define that term. That misinformation is still found on Wikipedia and is also often still used by the media and many leftist websites.
    Continued in next post….

  26. JesseTMims says:

    To learn the truth for yourself and also find out where most of the misinformation and the resulting confusion comes from, please read the information at the following links. Reading the comments under the articles at those links is also very interesting and informative. There’s a LOT of information and it can be a bit tedious; but, you don’t have to read and absorb everything in one sitting. For future reference, you can bookmark each link separately or simply click the time this comment was posted and it will open into a new window which can be bookmarked so you can pull up the exact location of this comment anytime.
    To read about the lies from the CRS, see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/
    The CRS is not the only entity that has lied about the meaning of NBC. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/
    For proof of the legal definition of “natural born citizen,” see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=Minor+v+Happersett+Revisited
    More on that here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/
    Still more: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=Dirty+%22little%22+secret
    Not only did SCOTUS legally define NBC in Minor v. Happersett, that Court has also cited the same definition in deciding several OTHER cases down through the years. See http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme%20Court
    Here is a good article written by Mario Apuzzo on the natural born citizen issue: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/atty-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred.html
    Now… Who is NOT a natural born citizen and; therefore, NOT eligible to become president…
    Here are some very well known names who fail the test:
    1. Barack Obama: Possibly born on U.S. soil; but, even if he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent at birth; whereas TWO are required. He has never disputed the fact that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Despite his lack of eligibility, he willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2008 and 2012 and even fraudulently accepted the title of president even though he can never be an Article II, Section I, paragraph 5 president.
    2. John McCain: Born of two U.S. citizens; but, NOT born on U.S. soil. Rather than having been born in a U.S. Naval Hospital on a U.S.. Naval Base inside the Panama Canal Zone, as he often claims, he was actually born in Colon Hospital in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama! Even if he had been born inside the Panama Canal Zone, he was, by Panamanian law, still a citizen of Panama at birth. See the detailed explanation, including link to his birth certificate: “John McCain, citizen of Panama at birth” at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=John+McCain. Despite his lack of eligibility, McCain willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the GOP candidate for president in 2008.
    3. Marco Rubio: Has never disputed the fact that neither of his parents became naturalized citizens until AFTER he was born. But, because they did not, he is not a natural born citizen; even though, he is a citizen born in Miami, Florida. Despite his lack of eligibility, he refuses to admit that he is not. Whenever asked, he says he is both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.
    4. Ted Cruz: Born in Canada, not on U.S. soil, and had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. He has never denied his birth status. But, despite his lack of eligibility, he claims to be both a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so. [Interestingly, I originally wrote this about 8 months ago, well before anyone was hardly even contemplating a Ted Cruz run fore the presidency.]
    5. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal: Born on U.S. soil in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to immigrants from India who arrived in America only six months before he was born. Since it takes years to become a naturalized citizen after coming to this country, it is impossible for Jindal’s parents to have completed the naturalization process before he was born. Despite his lack of eligibility, he maintains that he is a natural born citizen and eligible to become president; and, aspires to do so.
    So, we have one who tried and failed, one who tried and succeeded, and three others (Republicans!) waiting in the wings to ride the coattails of Obama’s usurpation into the Oval Office.
    Are we, as conservatives who are supposed to defend and uphold the Constitution that so many of our ancestors died for, going to allow one of “our own” to further erode that document just because Obama has seemingly gotten away with it? Dare we even trust these deceivers to faithfully carry out their duties in ANY elected position; REGARDLESS, of how wonderful they seem?

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      JesseTMims I’m sorry, but this is completely incorrect. Your source for the first link and probably some others is ex-lawyer Leo Donofrio. He abandoned his blog, the birther movement and the legal profession, and thus far hasn’t looked back. You should know that he has never won a single case (at least not based on the eligibility requirements) before abandoning his law requirements.
      Minor v. Happersett could not and did not create binding precedent as to the definition of a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court simply noted that the plaintiff, Virginia Minor, was born in the United States to citizen parents, and therefore was obviously a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen. The language used by the Supreme Court certainly stated that those born in the United States to citizen parents were natural born citizens. But in no way did it RESTRICT the term.
      Virginia Minor was suing for the right to vote, claiming that the fourteenth amendment, specifically the privileges or immunities clause, gave her the right to vote as a citizen of the United States. Since there is no difference between the voting rights of naturalized citizens and natural born citizens, there was no need for the Supreme Court to establish a comprehensive definition of natural born citizen. Therefore, they COULD not, even if they wanted to, since binding precedent can be created ONLY by an issue before the court.
      The Supreme Court itself stated this in the ruling when they said, “It is sufficient for everything we have now to
      consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
      jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
      Notice, “…are themselves citizens,” without the modifier of natural born. All they needed to know was that Virginia Minor was a citizen, without reference to what type of citizen she was. Had she been suing for the right to run for President, it might be different. But she was only suing for the right to vote. But even if she had been suing for the right to run for President, even then there would be no need for the Supreme Court to create a comprehensive definition of natural born citizen, only to determine that Virginia Minor herself fell into this category.
      Another source, I noticed, is birther attorney Mario Apuzzo. It should be noted that he’s NOT a Constitutional Attorney. He’s accident claims (ambulance chaser) and defender of DUI offenders.
      It should be noted that birthers have no won a single case in any court based upon these claims. On the contrary, they’ve been losing all of them. It’s a little ridiculous to claim that this is fact when birthers haven’t won a single case.
      On the contrary, this was the decision of Indiana Court of Appeals when deciding the case of two pro se litigants, who tried to prevent the Governor of Indiana from submitting votes for both John McCain and Barack Obama on the grounds that neither one, supposedly, was a natural born citizen.
      This court ruled that, yes, they are.
       
      Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark,we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so toowere those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.
      This ruling has been cited in at least ten ballot challenges, ALL of which the birthers have lost. It’s ridiculous to claim that birthers are right about this, when all they do and have ever done is lose every case. Moreover, the Supreme Court refuses to even hear this garbage. They have better things to do than indulge the prattling of conspiracy theorists.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      And by the way, ALL persons you listed in your post are natural born citizens. They are citizens at birth and ALL citizens at birth are natural born citizens. That’s all the term has ever meant.

      1. ohhhdear says:

        PatrickJColliano  You are wrong. Just because someone is a citizen at birth does not make them a natural born citizen. There is a difference.  Citizen at birth does not make a natural born citizen.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          ohhhdear PatrickJColliano Yes, it does. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

        2. GregoryConterio says:

          ohhhdear PatrickJColliano We’ve been through this several times already, ohhhdear, and I am still waiting for someone to step-up, and show one place where it’s written as law, one court case, or one bit of supporting evidence anywhere supporting the contention that there is such a difference.  If you know of such evidence, please share it with us.

        3. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterioohhhdearPatrickJCollianohttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/ Funny how you guys don’t agree with a lawyer when he is not on your side, but dismiss the rest of us because we are not lawyers.

        4. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio ohhhdear PatrickJColliano So then I take it you can’t indeed find any authoritative support for your contention then?  This is all you can come up with?  A blog post?

        5. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterio PeterLettkeman ohhhdear PatrickJColliano  A blog post from a lawyer that has examined the cases that Patricks whole argument is based on. You just dismiss him because he is not in your corner on the issue. BTW I never caught either of your credentials as to what law schools you attended.

        6. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio ohhhdear PatrickJColliano   You mean Donofrio, who has completely abandoned that who line of argument?
          I asked for case law or a written statute, not a blog post.

        7. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterio PeterLettkeman ohhhdear PatrickJColliano His blog post is my response to Patrick and your argument about Wong Kim Ark.

      2. JesseTMims says:

        PatrickJColliano
        Re “ALL persons you listed in your post are natural born citizens. They are
        citizens at birth and ALL citizens at birth are natural born citizens.
        That’s all the term has ever meant.”
        You’re entitled to your own opinions; but, there is only ONE set of facts and the facts are not in agreement with your opinion.
        The Constitution says, “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…”
        If a citizen at birth (aka native citizen) were the same as a natural born citizen, there would have been no reason for the Framers to have distinguished between citizens and natural born citizens in the requirements for the office of president.
        They also used the term citizen, as opposed to natural born citizen when setting forth the requirements for Senators AND Representatives. That proves the two terms were NOT interchangeable in the minds of the Framers. So it is still today.
        A draft of the Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton included the following presidential requirements: “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.”
        If the Framers had intended for just any citizen at birth to become president, they would not have bothered to change the presidential requirements from those in Hamilton’s draft to include the term natural born citizen at the behest of John Jay in his letter to George Washington. See http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg.
        Even Obama’s CURRENT USCIS confirms that there is a difference between a citizen at birth (native citizen ) and a natural born citizen. See http://web.archive.org/web/20100120153413/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html.
        At that link, under the heading “(3)

        Nationality Act of 1940; Immigration and Nationality Act” (4th paragraph), you will find the following:
        “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments
        also apply to a NATIVE- and NATURAL BORN-CITIZEN woman who expatriated
        herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a
        category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation.” (emphasis mine)

        Nope, that;s NOT an error… Again, on that same page under the heading “(7)

        Restoration of citizenship is prospective” (2nd paragraph), you will find the following:
        “The words ‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States
        to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place
        on or after September 22, 1922,’ as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940
        statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN or
        NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the
        date citizenship was reacquired.” (emphasis mine)
        As they say, “the third time’s the charm;” and so it is here… Under the heading “(8) (b) Naturalization” (6th paragraph), you will find:
        “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to
        erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the
        status if naturalized, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by
        her status prior to loss.” (emphasis mine)
        All of which, together, makes totally absurd your claim that a citizen at birth is  same as a natural born citizen.
        PeterLettkeman  and   SunnydSmilesmay find this interesting…

    3. SunnydSmiles says:

      JesseTMims  Bravo Jesse! Except Old Patrick will argue with you until he is blue in the fact that you are wrong..*l*

      1. RickBulow says:

        SunnydSmiles JesseTMims  Actually PatrickJColliano has it right. HE has done the research. It is apparent you and other birthers only parrot the Hillary Clinton talking points. (after all, she was the original birther who came up with the things about Obama which have been proven to be false.

  27. ForLiberty says:

    Is that in spite of the fact that the Law of Nations is specifically mentioned in Article 1, Section 8?

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      ForLiberty Baloney. The “law of nations” is simply a reference to international law. If they intended a book written by a monarchist to be “respected,” they would have included the authors name. Moreover the full title of the book is “Droit des gens;
      ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux
      affaires des nations et des souverains,” meaning, “Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns.”Yeah, right. The framers of the Constitution intended Law of Nations to refer to some book written by a monarchist, and the framers were so dumb they didn’t even bother to include the author’s name or even use the four-volume treatise’s full name.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      Can I ask you an earnest question? Why do you accept everything that birther’s tell you, without looking up a single thing for yourself? You haven’t read United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but you’re willing to accept everything the birthers tell you about it. You haven’t read Minor v. Happersett either…even though the entire ruling is only twelve pages long.
      You haven’t read Vattel, but because you think it provides a definition of natural born citizen that would make Obama ineligible, and Obama is just soooooo abhorrent to you, that you’ll listen to every piece of crap birthers tell you about it.
      “Oh, yes, Vattel was very influential! He was the most important person of all when it came to writing our Constitution.”
      If you’d bother to read the work, you’d know that Vattel’s biggest influence on the Founding Fathers was as someone they’d want to STAY away from.
      He is a monarchist, for one thing. And he believes that kings should be meddling in all kinds of our affairs. He is a devout anti-Catholic, believes that the king should be the head of the church. He does not believe in freedom of religion or freedom of speech, and believes it should be criminal to speak against the church or the government.
      Think about that. If Vattel was such a great influence on the Constitution, YOU wouldn’t be allowed to say things that you’re saying now. You’re speaking against the President. Under Vattel’s laws, you’d be in prison for doing it.
      He thinks no one should be allowed to marry a foreigner of a different religion. He believes NO ONE but royalty and law-enforcement should be allowed to own guns. He believes that ALL land belongs to the state.
      If you’d even bothered to SKIM Vattel, you’d KNOW without a doubt that this is something our Founding Fathers wanted to stay FAR away from. Reference after reference to all the powers that the King should have.
      But you just never do that. You never look at or check everything. You just blindly accept EVERYTHING birthers tell you.

      1. ForLiberty says:

        PatrickJColliano Earnest question, wrong assumption.  Patrick, I have read the Wong Kim Ark ruling.  I have also read the Minor v. Happerset ruling.  You claim to tell me I haven’t.  I suppose now you think you are God?  Sorry to disappoint you.  Because I have read them and come to a different conclusion than yourself, you then assume the role of a seer and claim I haven’t read them and claim I’m a blind follower of birthers.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
        You then assume, “You haven’t read Vattel, but because you think it provides a definition of natural born citizen that would make Obama ineligible, and Obama is just soooooo abhorrent to you, that you’ll listen to every piece of crap birthers tell you about it.”

        Um Patrick, this discussion is about Ted Cruz.  I haven’t made an appeal to Obama.  Perhaps you are just misguided on this issue, or once again you are assuming something about me that isn’t true.

        Additionally, your claims about Vattel being most influential is non sense.  I’ve never said that, but again, the assumptions….
        Again, the assumptions of “blindly accepting everything someone tells me” is just that, an assumption.
        What’s more interesting is that you blast the issue of Vattel and his monarchism and yet you appeal to Common Law.  Because the monarch’s law was applied in a uniform manner, it became “common” to every shire in the land. This “common-law” system of adjudication was adopted by the American colonies and continues to be applied in nearly all of the 50 states of the Union.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty PatrickJColliano Thank you for admitting that you now know that the U.S. is under the common law definition of “natural born.”

        2. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Patrick, the point of what I referenced was that common law was intimately tied to the monarchy, something you blasted in your previous statement.  Now, the question would be when common law was used, was there freedom of speech and religion and such?  Hmmmm, I don’t think so.  That was part of the reason Pilgrims came to America.  So, while I don’t discount portions of Common law being used, not all of it was put into practice, as you suggest.  Thanks for missing the point:)

        3. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Also, no need to apologize for incorrectly assuming things about me and what I was actually addressing.

        4. PatrickJColliano says:

          And you have not read Minor v. Happersett (nor do you intend to) nor have you read Wong Kim Ark (nor do you intend to), nor have you read Vattel (nor do you intend to).
          And yes, you did tout Vattel as being the most important influence on the Constitution. Or do you not even read the links you post, when you touted Publius Huldah as a Constitutional lawyer (someone you know NOTHING about because she uses a pen name and gives us no way to check her credentials; you don’t even know if she IS a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional lawyer)?
          That link you posted includes the following: “So!
          Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775;
          Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our
          Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our
          Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic”
          taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal
          Convention of 1787.”
          So, please spare me your dishonest backpedaling. Unless you expect me to believe that it was someone else who posted that link, calling Publius Huldah a “constitutional scholar” and “an actual attorney.” You further claimed that she “deals rightly with what the founding fathers meant by natural born citizen.”
          “Duuuuuh…I never said Vattel was so important. I just posted a link by someone else who said that and I said she was a constitutional scholar, even though I knowing about her, and that she’s a real attorney, even though I have no way of verifying that because I don’t know who she is. And I said she deals rightly with that the framers meant by natural born citizen. But I never said that Vattel was so influential.”

        5. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty PatrickJColliano I’m not going to. I’ll stand by what I said. You have NOT read Minor v. Happersett or Wong Kim Ark. You know how I know this? Because BOTH rulings claim that natural born citizenship is defined in common law.
          Furthermore, you made the ridiculous claim that Vattel was actually referenced in the Constitution. No person who ever read Vattel would make that mistake.

        6. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty PatrickJColliano Common law is NOT tied to the monarchy. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Common law actually has nothing to do with the Monarchy, other than that the king once appointed judges. Common law is tied to the judiciary.
          You might want to save yourself some embarrassment in the future by taking two seconds to look up terms that you don’t understand, like “common law.”

        7. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty PatrickJColliano For the uninformed who don’t wish to expose themselves as complete ignorami, the way ForLiberty just did, common law is just another term for case law or precedent. And it’s COMPLETELY bound in the Judiciary.
          IF I had quoted CIVIL LAW, then yes, ForLiberty might have a point about it being bound up in the monarchy. But common law adopted in the U.S. was the common law of the judiciary, not the monarchy.
          If you weren’t aware of this, the way ForLiberty obviously isn’t, then I may have just saved you from making an idiot of yourself.
          You’re welcome.

        8. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano Ahhh, again, stop lying Patrick.  I have read the rulings.  Sorry you can’t deal with that, but then what can I say when I addressed your inability to cop to being clearly caught in several assumptions and lies.
          Actually I provided a link in which she did write about Vattel, but to state that he “was the most important influence on the constitution” is quite a stretch.  Again, claims like that make one wonder if you even understand what is being communicated when you read something.
          Again I told you PH is a retired JAG attorney and constitutional scholar.  Get that Patrick?  Not Constitutional attorney.  Please, in the future make sure you understand that before writing it again.
          Second, I actually speak with PH on a regular basis, so your claims of “knowing nothing about” are more assumptions.  BTW, how’s that digging into PH coming?  Oh that’s right, I assume I can count on you to not even take the time.

          As for your quote from the article, please tell me where she said anything other than what letters indicate.  Additionally, please quote where Vattel was “the most important influence on the Constitution,”  you can’t because it doesn’t exist.  you just made it up.  in other words, you lied…..here let me help you with your phrase…..just. stop. lying.
          You then correctly assert what I actually said about PH.  “constitutional scholar” and “an actual attorney.”   See that Patrick?   And in the same response you claimed I said she was a constitutional attorney.  Everyone can see you are not faring well here.
          The so important was in reference to your claim about “most important.”  No where is that stated, so spare us your drivel.

        9. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty It seems you are guilty of what you claim about “insane birthers.”  You are unwilling to consider you are just plain wrong.  I don’t care what you think of me Patrick.  I simply asked you about the reference of Law of Nations Patrick, nothing more:)  Again, I have not claimed to have read  all of Vattel, but I have read the rulings you mentioned.  Apparently, I can’t trust your reading since you obviously have a hard time even correctly responding to my comments, which was clearly demonstrated in your last comment with contradictions abounding.

        10. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty I actually did Patrick.  That’s where I cited it from.  I realize the judiciary was there, but the point of the Monarch is still just as valid.  In other words, common law occurred under a monarchy, something you blasted Vattel for.  That was the point.

        11. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Patrick, when I referenced common law, i was not referencing the US, though I did say it followed to the US.  I was pointing back to its origins under the Monarchy.  you did make an idiot of yourself.  Thanks.

        12. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLibertyPatrickJCollianoI love how you backpedal. First you claim to have said, “in other words, the common law occurred under a monarchy.”
          That’s not what you said. Just. Stop. Lying.
          You said, “Patrick, the point of what I referenced was that common law was
          intimately tied to the monarchy, something you blasted in your previous
          statement.”
          No, it was not “intimately tied to a monarchy.” The common law, as the U.S. proves, can exist independently of a monarchy. Obviously, it is not intimately tied to a monarchy. The very fact that the U.S. has adopted the common law, except in such cases as it conflicts with our existing laws — and the fact that we’ve adopted numerous common law terminology, such as “ex post facto,” “high crimes and misdemeanors,” “bill of attainder,” “militia,” habeas corpus,” and yes, “natural born” — show that common law is anything BUT intimately tied to a monarchy, contrary to your previous claim but now are frantically trying to disown. However, Vattel’s philosophy, as expressed in Law of Nations, cannot exist independently of a monarchy.
          Vattel demands that the King be head of the church. Whoops, the U.S. has no king. And for this reason, he despises Catholics, as he considers them more bound to “the Holy See.” Whoops, freedom of religion in the U.S. Can’t tell Catholics they aren’t allowed to worship that way.
          He also talks about the demotion of nobility should they commit an offense against the sovereign. Which would thereby strip them of the right to bear arms. Whoops. No nobility, no sovereign and I think the population would have a HUGE problem with only the nobility and law-enforcement being allowed to bear arms.
          Vattel’s philosophy, by contrast, is intimately tied to a monarchy, and the U.S. proves that common law is not. So, yes, I can blast Vattel for being a monarchist. And it’s pretty hard to claim that common law is “intimately tied to a monarchy.” Hello? What country do you live in?
          You’ve truly embarrassed yourself with your backpedaling ignorance and frantic attempts to disown your own statements. If Publius Huldah is an attorney (which she isn’t) and a constitutional scholar (which she obviously is not), you may tell her for me that she’s a remarkably poor one. Perhaps the worst. She has done an abysmal job of educating you.
          You made a perfect fool of yourself by suggesting that Vattel’s Law of Nations was referenced in the Constitution, despite the fact that the reference failed to include the author’s name or even the full title of his book.
          You obviously have NO IDEA what common law is, since you believe it is “intimately tied to the monarchy,” yet the very nation you live in proves that it’s not by its very existence.  Then you lied and tried to soften your statements. Then you are claiming that you read rulings that you have PROVEN you know nothing about. It’s hard to imagine anyone making a greater fool of themselves than you have done.

        13. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLibertyPatrickJColliano And before you lie more and try to claim that you knew all along what common law was, let me remind you of this staggering piece of ignorance:
          “Because the monarch’s law was applied in a uniform manner, it
          became “common” to every shire in the land. This “common-law” system of
          adjudication was adopted by the American colonies and continues to be
          applied in nearly all of the 50 states of the Union.”
          The monarch’s law is NOT common law. The monarch’s law is civil law. Common law is simply an older term for case law or precedent. The monarch’s law never became common law. From beginning to end, the common law exists ONLY in the judiciary.
          Just heading off any laughable claims you might make about CLAIMING to know what common law is.

        14. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Like I said, the definition of the word “was” is in play  Patrick.  Thanks again for demonstrating you don’t know or comprehend what I was getting at.  
          Even more than that you are now changing things up about PH, first you called her a constitutional attorney, now it’s right said scholar (didn’t even mention you were wrong).  Second, you say she isn’t an attorney but with no evidence, sort of like this conversation we’re engaged in.
          The only fool here is you sir.  I never said that common law could not exist apart from a monarchy.  I said it WAS intimately tied with the monarchy.  You then twist that to claim I’m saying something else.  Nice diversion, but it doesn’t stick.  I suggest reading comprehension next time before going off on a tirade that has nothing to do with my comment.

        15. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty patrick what is it when you knowingly misrepresent my comments?  Oh that’s right, lying.  Just. STop. lying.
          Again, your comment here isn’t even close to what I said.  My point was that common law existed under the monarchy.  you twist that into something else.  Again, nice attempt at diversion, but I never said the monarch issued common law.  If you think so please copy and paste ok?  That’s what I thought.  
          The point was obvious, it existed under a monarchy.  Your twisting doesn’t get you reading comprehension skills though.

        16. PatrickJColliano says:

          ForLiberty PatrickJColliano No, you said it was intimately tied to a monarchy. Common law is case law, and exists entirely in the judiciary. Monarchy or not.
          Vattel’s philosophy depends on a monarchy..

        17. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty Well it was Patrick.  It existed under the monarchy.  Jeez!  You just don’t get it.  Furthermore, to use something from Vattel, does not mean you endorse monarchy.  You are ASSUMING AGAIN, if someone borrows something from someone they must borrow the whole thing.  That, my friend, is ridiculous.  Again, when asked to provide an actual statement in which you said I said the monarch issued common law, you can’t do it.  You provide something that is not that.  Again, reading comprehension would be a class you need at this point.

        18. ForLiberty says:

          PatrickJColliano ForLiberty oh and just. stop. lying:)

  28. GregoryConterio says:

    makes a very good point, and notes something I generally try to do: Read original sources.  Don’t just go by some link to a blogger, and assume what he or she says is true.  More often than not, it makes you look foolish.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten excited over some “research” cited by a writer, or some bit of breaking news, only to go to the original source and find what they said is completely wrong.  I’m sure that is how sources like Wong Kim Ark and Happersett wind up being so often cited when they actually prove the OPPOSITE of what it’s claimed they do.
    If more people would take the time to go to original sources before posting, we would likely not be having discussions like this one.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      GregoryConterio If I may say so, I have a couple of minor quibbles with the synopses you gave above. Before I state them, I agree with the basic premise, Cruz is a natural born citizen.
      Under Wong Kim Ark, you wrote: “This case affirms the principle of Jus Soli, or citizenship at birth, established in the 14th Amendment.”
      Jus soli means “law of the soil.” It does not mean citizenship at birth. It means that citizenship at birth is established by place. In other words, you’re a citizen of wherever you’re born. This is distinguished from other types of birth citizenship, such as jus sanguinis, or law of blood, which means you inherit the citizenship from your parents. Japan is a good example of a nation that practices this. If you’re born on Japanese soil to two American parents, you will not be a citizen of Japan of any type. However, if your parents are Japanese citizens, then you’re a Japanese citizen no matter where you’re born.
      Also, jus soli was not established in the 14th Amendment. It always existed in the U.S. As Wong Kim Ark points out, a child born in the U.S. to alien parents is a natural born citizen, and it has been this way since the Declaration. Though the Supreme Court did say that this practice was reaffirmed with the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark did not need the 14th Amendment. He would have been a natural born citizen, regardless.
      Under “The Venus,” you wrote: “This oddly-named case (Venus was the name of a merchant ship
      seized by the U.S. Navy during the War of 1812) from 1814 is actually a
      property dispute dealing with the disposition of war prizes seized by
      the United States.”
      It was not seized by the Navy; it was seized by an American privateer. The Venus had to do with property rights, as you point out. A group of naturalized Americans (British expatriates), had returned to England to conduct trade. When the U.S. had declared war on England (in a messy conflict known as the War  of 1812), their merchantman “The Venus” was seized, and the ship and cargo claimed as prizes of war. The British expatriates maintained that they were American citizens (which they were) and therefore, their property could not be seized as a war prize. While the privateers argued that remaining in England after war was declared made their ship fair game. Strangely, the Supreme Court sided with the privateers and allowed them to claim the cargo as a prize of war. The ship itself was awarded jointly to the privateers and the U.S. government.
      It should be pointed out also that the reference used by the birthers is a dissenting opinion (therefore carrying no judicial weight) written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Moreover, citizenship wasn’t was he was arguing. Siding with the original owners (believing they should have been allowed a reasonable amount of time to vacate England after war was declared), he cited Vattel not for his views on citizenship…and the translation he used did NOT use the term “natural born citizen,” but left the word “indigenes” untranslated…but whether the British expatriates had “domicile” or “simple habitation.” Marshall believe that they had only “simple habitation” and that their property should be returned.
      It is also interesting to note that Vattel, whom birthers seem to think was so influential on the Constitution, is summarily dismissed in the opinion of the court, written by Bushrod Washington (nephew of George Washington), In the opinion of the court, Grotius and Vattel are said to be “not much if any help” and called “mere elementary writers on the law of nations.”

      1. GregoryConterio says:

        PatrickJColliano GregoryConterio Thank you Patrick.
        In reference to Wong Kim Ark, I agree with your view, but as a bit of case law, it makes for an easy source of authority to point to in establishing the concept of Citizen at birth.  Likewise the 14th Amendment, although the underlying principle clearly predates it in Common Law.
        Regarding the Venus, you are quite right that it was a Privateer, not an actual Navy Vessel which seized the ship, although privateers do act on behalf of the Navy.  Due to space considerations, I did not get into the long discussion of the details, which are a bit complicated, only emphasizing that the case law actually did not at all support the “Birther” contention.

  29. PatrickJColliano says:

    Minor v. Happersett: A Walkthrough
    I’ve come to realize that the folks I’ve been engaging are simply trolling, trying to push informative posts (such as my own on Wong Kim Ark) further from the top so as to make the good information on this thread harder to find. For this reason, I will no longer engage them.
     
    Without further comment on the disruptors, I will now explain take the reader through Minor v. Happersett, a SCOTUS ruling that birthers have desperately and dishonestly tried to claim provides binding precedent as to the definition of natural born citizen, to quote ex-lawyer Leo Donofrio.
    The reason for this walkthrough is plain. Because birthers take certain statements from this ruling out of their context and assign meanings that were plainly not intended. If you’ll kindly slog through this post, you’ll see that the Supreme Court did not and could not create a definition of natural born citizen.
    The Background: Virginia Minor was born in Caroline County in 1824. She eventually married her distant cousin, attorney Francis Minor. Both the Minors were actively involved in Women’s Suffrage Movement, distributing pamphlets of their own creation, claiming that the newly adopted Fourteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote, specifically the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which reads as follows: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”
    Reasoning that as a citizen of the United States, she could not be kept from the privilege of voting, Virginia Minor attempted to register to vote in St. Louis, Missouri in 1872. Predictably, her request was rebuffed by voting registrar Reese Happersett, on the grounds that the Missouri State Constitution extends the right to vote to males only.
    Represented by Francis,
    John Krum and author of the Thirteenth Amendment John B. Henderson, Virginia sued at state court, and the case was heard at the St. Louis Old Courthouse (which, years earlier, also heard the first case of what would eventually arrive in the Supreme Court as the infamous Dred Scott v Sandford). Having failed at state court and in the Missouri Supreme Court, Virginia Minor then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case.
    As Virginia Minor claimed that as a citizen of the United States, she could not be kept from voting, the Supreme Court needed to determine that she was a citizen.
    It is here that the birthers’ excerpt of this case, plucked neatly out of its context, becomes the basis for their faulty argument.
    The first order of business was establishing that women can be citizens of the United States.
    From Minor v. Happersett,
    There is no doubt that women may be citizens.
    They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment “all persons born or
    naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
    thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and
    of the state wherein they reside.”
    Here we will note that the Supreme Court was merely concerned with whether or not women may be citizens, without regard as to what type.
    The Supreme Court then goes on to point that women were citizens since the inception of the nation and didn’t need the Fourteenth Amendment to declare them citizens.
    The next question, of course, was whether Virginia Minor herself was a citizen of the United States. As Virginia Minor was born in the United States and her parents were citizens, this was dealt with expediently.
    From Minor v. Happersett:

    Additions might always be made to the
    citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and
    second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution
    itself, for it provides that “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United
    States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible
    to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of
    naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created
    by naturalization.
    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.
    It is here that birthers become confused…if we charitably assume they are confused, as opposed to, say, lying. While the Supreme Court clearly states that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents, as Virginia Minor was, are natural born citizens, there is NOTHING in the language used that restricts the term. They do not say that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents are the ONLY natural born citizens, or that this is the ONLY WAY one can be considered a natural born citizen. Nonetheless, birthers, with their dearth of honesty (and reading comprehension skills), claim that this has become binding precedent as to the definition of “natural born citizen.”
    In a word, poppycock.
    First, we note that the question before the court was, as expressed in the opinion of the Court delivered by Chief Justice Morrison Waite: “The question is presented in this case whether,
    since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a
    citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in
    that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of
    the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”
    Notice, they needed only to determine that Virginia Minor is a citizen, not necessarily a natural born citizen. There is no distinction between the voting rights of naturalized or natural born citizens. Therefore, whether Virginia Minor was a naturalized or natural born citizen is completely irrelevant to the case before them.
    And it is axiomatic that binding precedent can only be made from a question that is before the court. The question of whether Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen was not before the Court. Merely, whether she was a citizen.
    In fact, the Supreme Court refused to address the citizenship of those born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents, precisely because that issue was not before them.
    Notice also that the Supreme Court states that the question of citizenship does not come from Vattel (Vattel, in fact, is never mentioned in this case), but from common law. This would seem to defeat the birther contention that “natural born citizen” comes from Vattel. Not according to the Supreme Court deciding Minor v. Happersett.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      From Minor v. Happersett
      Some authorities go further
      and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without
      reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the
      first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve
      these doubts.
      And the Supreme Court then reiterates the
      only question they need to consider when determining Virginia Minor was a
      citizen of the United States.
      From Minor v. Happersett:
      It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider
      that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are
      themselves citizens.

      Notice, that for the
      purposes of resolving the case before them, they need only know that
      those born in the U.S. to citizen parents are citizens, without
      reference to what kind. Minor v. Happersett might be said to have
      created case law that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents, except
      that hardly needed the Supreme Court to declare it such. That was never
      in doubt.
      There is, in fact, more in this case which would defeat
      the birther contention that Minor v. Happersett gave us a comprehensive
      definition of “natural born citizen.”
      From Minor v. Happersett:
      Under the power to adopt a uniform system of
      naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien,
      being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United
      States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling
      within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the
      time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the
      United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States
      that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United
      States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
      Notice,
      Congress is declaring that children born “beyond the sea” to citizen
      parents “should be considered as natural-born citizens,” and they are
      doing so with the blessing of the Supreme Court, which declares it as
      “under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization.”
      This
      would suggest that Congress’s power to “establish an uniform a rule of
      naturalization” includes the right to declare persons born outside the
      U.S. to be natural-born citizens. The Supreme Court obviously has no
      objections.
      This is why it is so important to read these cases. In light of this excerpt. the birther argument that Minor v. Happersett
      was ever intended to create a comprehensive definition of natural born
      citizen collapses so ignominiously, it is easily seen that birthers do
      not read these cases at all.
      What is interesting also to note is
      the revision to this law five years later, “And be it further enacted,
      that the children of persons duly
      naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age
      of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children
      of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and
      jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of
      the United States.”
      Notice, “shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” without specifying “natural born.”
      But what does the Supreme Court say about these revisions? “These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”
      So, despite the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795 did not include the phrase “natural born citizen,” unlike
      its predecessor of 1790, the Supreme Court claims that the provisions
      found in the Naturalization Act of 1790 “have been retained in all the
      naturalization laws adopted since.”
      But how can that be, if the
      subsequent revision called those children born to citizen parents merely
      “citizens,” instead of “natural born citizens,” as it stated in the
      first version of this law?
      The answer is obvious: the Supreme
      Court has never made a distinction between “citizen at birth” and
      “natural born citizen.” Since these children born outside the United
      States to citizen parents are considered citizens from birth, they are
      “natural born citizens,” and the Supreme Court treats this as a given.
      Again,
      this is all the evidence you need that birthers do not read the
      original documents, and accept only what they are told from a few
      out-of-context excerpts.
      After a considerable foray into the
      rights as conferred by the Constitution, the Supreme Court concluded
      that the Constitution did not give the right to vote to anyone (as it is
      regulated by the states), and therefore it is not one of the
      “privileges or immunities” of citizenship. Therefore, the Missouri law
      stood.
      From Minor v. Happersett:
      We have given this case the careful
      consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to
      be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments
      addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be
      sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but
      they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining
      the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument
      as to woman’s need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon
      her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of
      withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of
      a state to withhold.
       
      Being unanimously of the opinion that the
      Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage
      upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states
      which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void,
      we
      Affirm the judgment.

      1. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

        PatrickJCollianoIf you do your homework or research you’ll find by reading the letters
        between the Founding Fathers, that Ben Franklin sent a letter to some
        one in France who had sent him 3 copies of The Law of Nations by
        Emmerich de Vattel and it was this book that they poured over while
        writing the Constitution. Oh and just so you know The Law of Nations is
        common law which is different then English common law in that English
        common law refers to people as subjects where as The Law of Nations refers
        to people as citizens a major difference and the reason that they used
        Vattel’s Law of Nations.Also if you read what the Chief Justice penned in that we should look else where’s for the definition of a NBC.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          Yes, “elsewhere” from the Constitution, since the Constitution does not define the expression “natural born citizen.” He said, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born
          citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common
          law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
          familiar,…”
          “At common law…” Common law is plainly the source for the definition of “natural born citizen,” like many other terms found in the Constitution. The idea that the Founding Fathers relied on Vattel for their idea is simply crap. And Law of Nations is NOT common law. It’s natural law. Also, Vattel was a devout monarchist and implementing his ideas required a sovereign and nobility, which we do not have in the U.S.

  30. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

    You people are not looking to the source where the Founding Fathers got their ideas and definitions. At the time of the writting of the Constitution the Founding Fathers were in possession of The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel aka common law. Book 1, Chapter 19 paragraph 212 defines what the Founders meant by an NBC.
    § 212. Citizens and natives.
    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
    certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
    advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
    country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
    perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
    children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
    their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
    owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
    each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
    becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
    children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
    shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
    renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
    I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
    born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it
    will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      The Founding Fathers did not use Vattel for any of the laws regarding citiznship.  The term “natural born” did not originate in Vattel. “Natural born” first originated in English common law, and first appeared (in writing, at least) in Calvin’s Case in 1608, which predates Vattel’s “Law of Nations” by 150 years.
      Also Vattel never used a term that is properly translated as “natural born citizen.” Vattel wrote in French and the French term for “natural born citizen” is “citoyen de naissance.”

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        PatrickJCollianoNope! John Jay was a nobody, and  Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton are all liars. But that is all your opinion and backed by what statements from the founders of our nation? Another fun fact about this whole forum is that there are only two people fighting against the rest. One is Patrick and the other is the author.

        Some
        will say that the founding fathers used the definition of natural born subjects
        from British common law.I find it odd
        that a group of people trying to create a brand new country, separate
        themselves from a King and country that they were subjects of would use those
        laws exclusively to draft their new Constitution. They also did not use the
        word subject but used the word citizen to describe this nation’s people.
        Was Vattel a favorite book of some of the
        founders, and may have been influential in the development of our Constitution?
        Judging by this from Benjamin Franklin to
        Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December, 1775 it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you
        have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the
        circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law
        of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our
        own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts
        Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our
        Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and
        have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
        From , p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the time of the American
        Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most
        authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and
        Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time.
        Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his
        predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law of Nature upon
        International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American Journal of
        International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.Also during this period who was a member of the Congress Franklin spoke
        of? It was John Jay a Delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-76 from New
        York. .” If they received a copy of
        it in 1775 then by the time the Constitution was adopted it had been in their
        hands for over a decade.
        The framers sought to prevent the influence
        of foreign governments or monarchies and wrote in to the Constitution the Natural Born Citizen clause ” 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.”
        This clause and its wording were a direct
        result of a conversation in letters, specifically this between and George Washington.
        For those that do not know of John Jay and
        his importance in the drafting of the Constitution I present the
        following.John Jay, Alexander Hamilton
        and James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly known
        as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of New York why
        they should support the ratification of the Constitution. John Adams later said
        in reference to who was the most influential proponent of constitutional reform
        that Jay was
        After seeing the draft language by Alexander
        Hamilton of the requirements to be President, John Jay wrote this in his letter
        to George Washington dated 25 July 1787. John Jay was an avid reader of
        Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law
        (1758).In this book the definition of
        what a “natural born Citizen” is can be found p. 101 in section
        212. “The natives, or natural-born
        citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
        Section 212 provides us with insight as to Jays wording of his letter back to
        Washington here “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
        Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any
        but a natural born Citizen.”

      2. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

        PatrickJColliano That sir is where you’re wrong, because the Founding Fathers abandoned the use of English common law because of their differentiation between what we know as citizens and their use of subjects. TheLaw of Nations was the common law amongst nations out side the realm of England because of that difference. As well as the fact that French was the language of diplomacy at that time and the Founding Fathers were well versed in French and understood the meaning portrayed in that phrase “citoyen de naissance”. And if you truly read the Wong Kim Ark he was deem a citizen not a natural born., because the 14th amendment only pertains to citizens and has nothing to do with an NBC.

        1. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          PatrickJColliano: “The natives, or natural-born
          citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” It is quite plainly written here if you read it that the parents (plural) are citizens and therefore upholds the fact that Ted Cruz IS NOT ELIGIBLE to run because his father was Cuban and he was BORN IN CANADA!

        2. RickBulow says:

          ThomasCharlesNeith Just. Stop. Lying. PatrickJColliano SHOWED the truth, but you refuse to accept it because you cannot handle the truth

        3. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          RickBulow ThomasCharlesNeith PatrickJColliano If you even knew what the truth was you’d know that Patrick is spouting a bunch of incoherent babble trying to vet some one who isn’t eligible for the presidency. I’ve learned not to  exchange knowledge with fools who refuse to understand what’s in front of their nose. Patrick has mis interpreted several of the Supreme Court rulings to fit his  agenda to continue down a path we currently are attempting to correct because of a lack of improper or no vetting (in the case of Obama).

        4. RickBulow says:

          ThomasCharlesNeith you do not know the truth.  PatrickJColliano  and I are #RejectingFalsePremises and showing that Cruz IS ELIGIBLE. You have [provided false narratives which we have disproven and debunked with FACTS and RESEARCH

        5. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          RickBulow ThomasCharlesNeith PatrickJColliano Sorry to disagree with you, because all that Patrick has shown is his ability to skim through things and pick and chose what best fits what he wants to believe. He then spews this miss-information on to others who’ll take his miss-interpretation and wave banners and bang drums claiming it as truth. 
          In the case of Wong Kim Ark, he pushes that it claims NBC under the 14th amendment which it doesn’t. The only thing as pointed out by the Chief Justice is establishes citizenship. Under the Minor vs Happersett, the Chief Justice points us to look else where for our definition of an NBC, so one must follow the path of the writers and turn to the letters of those involved which are on file at the Library of Congress. Patrick wants us to believe that they used English common law when the writers state in their letters that they couldn’t use English common law because the use of subjects and therefore Ben Franklin acquired 3 copies of The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel, sending 1 to Harvard in Boston, 1 to the writers and the 3rd else where. If you take the time to explore The Law of Nations aka natural law amongst the nations (also considered common law). As for labeling Emmerich de Vattel with The French government, he hasn’t the time read up on Vattel, because Vattel was a German who lived in France. And using The Law of Nations as a guide based their writing of the Constitution around citizens. Even much earlier Supreme Court cases mention the use Vattels work. So you need to read all the information and not skim over and pick what you want.

        6. SunnydSmiles says:

          RickBulow ThomasCharlesNeith PatrickJColliano No, you and Patrick are delusional, irrational, and would not know a “fact” if it walked up and slapped you in the face…*l*

          Good Job ThomasCharlesNeith….give it up tho…these two are like most from the left….won’t listen to facts….

        7. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles RickBulow ThomasCharlesNeith PatrickJColliano
          Ignore Sunnyd, folks. She hasn’t been in such good spirits since a recent death in the family. Judy Garland dropped a house on her wicked sister and she just hasn’t been the same since then.

        8. PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles RickBulow ThomasCharlesNeith Now now.

        9. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles RickBulow ThomasCharlesNeith   *rotfl* THANKS for showing everyone how petty you are when you can’t dispute facts laid out in front of you. Every time you open your mouth, your credibility goes down. I suggest you stop while you can, it is already in the sewer as it is….Oh well, as they say, you just can’t fix stupid…

        10. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJCollianoSunnydSmilesRickBulowThomasCharlesNeith  ThomasCharlesNeithRickBulowPatrickJColliano 
          I agree…and what Patrick FAILS to post is that when Chief Justice
          Waite delivered the opinion of the court HE DID define NATURAL BORN
          CITIZEN in THAT OPIONION…..(for YOU IGNORANT PATRICK SINCE YOU KEEP
          LEAVING THIS OUT of your ARGUMENT)
          “Additions might always
          be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by
          birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the
          Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a
          natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of
          the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of
          President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform
          rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be
          created by naturalization. 
          (PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS PATRICK!!! )

          The
          Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born
          citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law,
          with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
          familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of
          parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,
          citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
          distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and
          include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without
          reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there
          have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this
          case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for
          everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen
          parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all
          children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection,
          as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be
          in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact
          the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
          Under
          the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as
          early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,”
          might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the
          children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United
          States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such
          naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States,
          and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be
          born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should
          be considered as natural-born citizens. n8 These provisions thus enacted
          have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws
          adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat
          extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out
          of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers
          were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United
          States, were declared to be citizens also”
          Waite took it UPON HIMSELF to “go elsewhere” for the definition…..
          And since Patrick is too dense to understand this…the pertinent part is…..

          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.

  31. PeterLettkeman says:

    My time on this article is done. I have posted my research and that of
    others. I have come to realize that I’m really only arguing my point
    with the author and his partner Patrick who continually keep patting each
    other on the back for doing nothing more than pushing disinformation in
    the face of all the facts that have been presented by myself and
    others. If only two people out of all that have posted on here disagree
    with what we have been saying then the majority are on the same page and
    this fight is complete. Some will never see the light. To the author I
    challenge you to read the “blog” post concerning Wong Kim Ark. To
    Patrick I say pick up your game. Calling people names and belittling
    them are the tactics of the liberal left, and 99% of us are above that.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      The blog post regarding Wong Kim Ark was written by EX-lawyer Leo Donofrio. He has since abandoned his blog, the birther movement and his law practice. And by the way, if you actually read the posts toward the end of his blog, he actually abandoned his position and recognized that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a natural born citizen. He does not agree with the Supreme Court, but he acknowledged that the Supreme Court did pronounce Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen.
      In sum, the author of that article no longer believes what you claim he believes. His initial work was very shoddy and made me wonder if he’d actually read the case, as he claimed, “If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural born citizen, the Supreme Court would have never reached the 14th Amendment issue, just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.”
      What makes his observation so laughable is that he didn’t even quote the ruling of the court. He quoted the Syllabus, which is not written by the Court, it was written by the Court reporter. Worse, Leo Donofrio didn’t even know this until someone corrected him!
      http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

      1. PatrickJColliano GregoryConterio Greg, Patrick, can you both please email info++at++westernfreepress++dot++com with the subject line TED CRUZ? I would like to get the three of us together to discuss something. Thx!

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          WesternFreePress PatrickJColliano GregoryConterio I emailed you as you asked.
          I have no regrets about Peter’s departure. He once posted a specific request on a Facebook forum demaning that I and several other birther debunkers be banned. He faults me for name-calling, but he obviously advocates censorship.
          Coward.

        2. PatrickJColliano GregoryConterio 
          I have been shocked by the levels of vitriol that I have witnessed on this subject. I was especially surprised by the vitriol to which I was personally subjected on Facebook for posting on this topic. It all began when I posted an article about a poll in Colorado that showed Red Cruz essentially tied with the far-more-well-known Hillary Clinton. Within moments, the eligibility crowd pounced, and it took just a short time before it got nasty.
          Ideologically, my libertarian/conservative credentials are pretty well beyond reproach, and those who know me personally know that have sacrificed more for the liberty movement (personally, financially, etc.) than the vast, vast majority of those who call themselves “politically active.” Moreover, I always try to conduct myself with decency and decorum in social networking environments. And yet, as soon as I said anything about Ted Cruz and the presidency, people began talking to me as if I had just dug up Thomas Jefferson from his grave and stabbed his corpse!

        3. PeterLettkeman says:

          WesternFreePress GregoryConterio  As to WesternFreePress saying that birthers go ugly early. I challenge you to follow Patrick and Rick Bulow’s posts on here and compare them to the others. It was not us that called people liars and other names.

        4. PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio PatrickJColliano  
          I wasn’t speaking for other instances or experiences, only my own. One of the things that amazed me was the fury. Even when it was not directed straight at me, there was this instant, furious, almost vicious reaction.
          I sympathize with the reasons behind their passion, in a way, but it really does need to be controlled and focused on more productive lines of assault. Even if the eligibility issue held water, it long ago proved to be a losing issue from a tactical standpoint.

        5. RickBulow says:

          PeterLettkeman WesternFreePress GregoryConterio Hey Lettkeman, I just told you to stop lying because that is what you were. Patrick and I had given you the truth and you refuse to acknowledge it. You lost the narrative when I jumped in with FACTS and RESEARCH

  32. GregoryConterio says:

    From Peter Lettkeman: “Another fun fact
    about this whole forum is that there are only two people fighting against the
    rest. One is Patrick and the other is the author. ”
    Actually what strikes me Peter ashe biggest distinction between Patrick & myself vs. everyone who is arguing against the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen is that we seem to be the only ones who actually take the time to read the original sources.  Simply posting a litany of links to other blogs does not constitute authoritative proof of one’s point.

    1. PeterLettkeman says:

      GregoryConterio Ninety-Nine percent of what I posted was my personal research on the subject. The only link to a blog I posted was the last link I posted because it was a great discussion on the subject of Wong Kim Ark’s case in which I agree with him. Why should I retype what I agree with when he has put in to legal terms that those with an open mind might understand.

      1. PatrickJColliano says:

        PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio Didn’t you say you were leaving? And spare me the self-righteous indignation. I seem to recall a Peter Lettkeman demanding that I be banned from certain Facebook groups, along with several of my friends and fellow-birther debunkers.
        “Oooooh, you’re so mean! You call names! Now please excuse me now while I go demand censorship be imposed! No ideas or beliefs should be expressed, but mine!”

      2. PatrickJColliano says:

        “Ninety-Nine percent of what I posted was my personal research on the subject.” In a word, baloney. He visits birther sites and with his confirmation bias in tow, he reads only and hears only what he thinks confirms his opinions.
        As to his relentless sobbing about his side never calls names, and all the name-calling comes from us, just a sampling of posts from his side.
        “I am beginning to wonder if you are a PLANT to try to get people to believe  your nonsense”
        “…well, you know what they say about Opinions….They are like
        Assholes..Everyone has one…It is just that YOURS is wrong, and YOU are
        the asshole! and while you are spitting…spit on YOURSELF! TRASH!”
        “Hey Nutcase..You are NOTHING…just another asshole with
        an opinion.”
        Far from not being insulting, your side has proven they are the most vulgar and uncouth individuals on this thread.
        More? “Ignore the jerk.”
        “It just proves your [sic] juvenile.”
        That one was from you, by the way.
        “Oh, waaaaah! Woe is us! The birther debunkers just insult us and insult us.  And we just never say anything even remotely insulting! Truly! We are the most victimized innocents since Christ himself!”

  33. PatrickJColliano says:

    Political Scientist and author Donald S. Lutz compiled a list of to the top 37 most often quotes sources by the Founding Fathers. While Vattel was in the top 37, he tied for dead last.
    http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

    1. SunnydSmiles says:

      PatrickJCollianoOH, that THAT makes it all set in stone…*lol*  whatever….here is one for you..Note it says he was “KEY”. Just another person’s opinion again….just as what YOU are posting is!

      ..”
      | Nov 30, 2009 | syc1959

      Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 3:41:03 PM by
      Vattel was the key in the United States Constitution in determining the Article 2 Natural Born Citizen clause. Here is a list of the references used by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington in regards to Vattel’s Law of Nations. This should dispel any notion that the Founding Fathers did not use the Law of Nations as their guide.
      Read the list off my blog. Contains references from John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the Ratification.
      A natural Born Citizen is a person born in country to parents who are citizens. Per Vattel
      The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights… The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

      1. PatrickJColliano says:

        Sunny, no, what I posted is NOT someone’s opinion. It is a political scientist who took the trouble to actually compile the sources quoted by the founding fathers and counted each one. Not someone’s opinion. Objective fact. And Vattel is locked in an 11 way tie for dead last.

        1. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano *rme* whatever….IF I wanted to look, I have NO doubt I could find a site that has FACTS showing that you are wrong instead of some “Political scientist”…but then again, you know everything, because you are SO smart…..I keep forgetting that…AND because YOU were THERE in your own mind when they created our Constitution, so you know it all……..I am done listening to your delusional, hand picked, false narratives…hope the rest of your life sucks as bad as you do….

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano I wish Peter were here. I’d love to see him say how kind and polite his side of the debate is and have him read your posts. You are, without a doubt, the crudest, most vulgar person ever to disgrace this thread. Roseanne Barr is more ladylike than you.
          Good riddance.

        3. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles *rotflmao* you damn PUSSY…(Want CRUDE???? YOU GOT IT)  THE things I said before were not crude OR Vulgar….but I can get down in the SEWER with you if you want me to…To ACCUSE people of what YOU, YOURSELF do…is beyond ignorant…IF you can’t take facts put in front of your FACE (Which you cannot!) then why don’t you just STHU? YOU have an agenda of trying to PROPAGATE LIES….and Americans are NOT as STUPID as you think they are!  Go back to your wormy books or go pick on someone that cannot defend themselves—That IS what people like YOU DO! Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh….Wahhhhh…PUSSY!

        4. p5151 says:

          PatrickJColliano I have someone who’s read more of the founding father’s own writings than you can possibly imagine. He’s about to release his book on the intent of the founding fathers. His research says your political science expert is full of bull. In fact you’re the only person I’ve ever seen post that De Vattel was least quoted….even obots disagree with you on that.

        5. PatrickJColliano says:

          p5151 PatrickJColliano Doubtful.

      2. PatrickJColliano says:

        And your stupid link leads right to this page.

        1. JesseTMims says:

          PatrickJColliano
          Re “And your stupid link leads right to this page.”
          And, being the true truth seeker you are, you clicked it a dozen times HOPING it would work so you could glean a bit factual information about the topic you want to learn everything that be can be known about. THAT is sarcasm, by the way…
          The truth is that IF you really wanted to know what was at that link, all you had to do was search the Internet for “Vattel’s Law of Nations and the Founding Fathers” +Nobarack08 and you would have found the information Sunny was referring to.
          See http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/vattels-law-of-nations-and-the-founding-fathers/

    2. JesseTMims says:

      PatrickJColliano
      Your list from Lutz is meaningless to a discussion of Vattel’s influence on the FRAMERS of the Constitution for a number of reasons; but, here are the main ones:
      1. Not all FOUNDING FATHERS of this country were FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Therefore, any FOUNDERS included in that list who were not also FRAMERS of the Constitution MAY have NEVER mentioned Vattel; but, that has no bearing whatsoever on the influence Vattel had on those actually involved in authoring the Constitution, AKA the Framers. In other words, for the Lutz list to be a valid qualifier in determining the amount of influence Vattel had on the writing of the Constitution, the Founders who were not also Framers would have to be eliminated from the survey. It is also important to note that once those non-Framer Founders were eliminated, the Vattel/non-Vattel ratio of influence would increase tremendously AND that would result in a much more accurate picture of exactly WHO influenced the content of the Constitution.
      2. Vattel was not the inventor of the Laws of Nations. He only organized into book form the concepts known by that name. Therefore, just because a particular Founder/Framer did not mention his name, or repeat verbatim (AKA, “quote”) a line from his book, that does NOT indicate a lack of influence upon that Founder/Framer by the concept of Laws of Nations. In other words, for the Lutz list to be a valid qualifier in determining the amount of influence Vattel AND/OR the Laws of Nations had on the writing of the Constitution, both quotes from Vattel AND references to the concepts of Laws of Nations in general would have to be included in the survey.
      3. The prelude to that list says, “These are the people and sources that
      the founders QUOTED most often [my emphasis].” Does that mean that ONLY direct quotes were included by Lutz in his survey; or, did he also include all references to the people whose names appear on his list? If Lutz did NOT include all quotes AND general references to Vattel, then his list is hopelessly useless in discerning the amount of influence Vattel and/or the Laws of Nations had upon the writing of the Constitution for THAT reason as well as those in 1 and 2 above.
      PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles may also find this post of interest…

      1. PatrickJColliano says:

        JesseTMims PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles
        And there is no nation that requires or has ever required the citizenship of both parents. You’re correct, incidentally, that Vattel did not write a book of laws that other nations might choose to adopt, but wrote about the laws of nations that existed at the time.
        In other words, you defeated yourself. Bravo! Encore! Encore!
        The nations required the citizenship of the fathers, and the citizenship of the mother was irrelevant, except in instances of illegitimate birth. Name one nation, just one that has EVER required the citizenship of both parents. Hint: you won’t find one. They don’t exist.

  34. JesseTMims says:

    PeterLettkeman  ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles 
    The following is good info to pass along to anyone still confused about how much Emmerich de Vattel and earlier chroniclers of  the laws of nations influenced the content of our Constitution needs to read the following:
    “Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness How the Natural Law Concept of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Inspired America’s Founding Fathers” at http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html.
    Part 2 can be found here: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel-2.html
    Part 3: http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id6.html

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      JesseTMims PeterLettkeman ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles Poppycock. Vattel was a monarchist who believed in organized religion, that the King should be head of the church, that only nobility and law enforcement should keep and bear arms.
      You might be able to exhume a few words from the Founding Fathers praising Vattel, but no source ever suggested that Vattel authored the idea of natural born citizenship, least of all that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents. (Vattel himself only required that children followed the citizenship of their FATHERS, or, in cases of illegitimate children, that the mother be a citizen.

      1. JesseTMims says:

        PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PeterLettkeman ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles
        Re “Vattel was a monarchist who believed in organized religion, that the
        King should be head of the church, that only nobility and law
        enforcement should keep and bear arms”
        So what… Implying that
        Vattel being a monarchist influenced his compilation of the laws of
        nations is akin to saying that just because Noah Webster was a lawyer,
        he could not compile a dictionary tailored to the American language.
        Re “You might be able to exhume a few words from the Founding Fathers praising Vattel…”Your
        attempt to rewrite history as to the number of references the Framers
        and Founders made to Vattel shows that  you have not seriously studied
        their words; OR, you are trying to be deceptive. Either way, your claim
        has been thoroughly debunked by the postings of myself and others here.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          JesseTMims PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles
          You have debunked NOTHING. Let’s be perfectly clear on that. Vattel NEVER required that both parents be citizens, only the fathers. The mother’s citizenship ONLY applies if the child is illegitimate.
          In nations that have adopted the Vatellian standard, such as France, Switzerland and Belgium, they NEVER required both parents be citizens. It was understood ALL along that Vattel required ONLY the father’s citizenship, or the mother’s in the case of illegitimate children.
          And at the beginning of the 20th century, every nation that adopted this standard to place mothers on an equal footing with fathers on this. Check the laws in ANY nation that uses this standard.  It requires either the mother OR the father. Both is certainly acceptable but NOT required.
          More to the point, Vattel does not give us the definition of “natural born citizen.” Both Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark have made it perfectly clear that our source is English common law. NEITHER ruling even MENTIONED Vattel by name and BOTH referenced common law.

        2. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PeterLettkeman ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles  I don’t know where you went to school, but I was taught that words ending in s were plural, meaning more then 1. And Vattel states the word parents meaning (logically) 2.

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          ThomasCharlesNeith PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles
          And I don’t know where YOU went to school, but the rules of grammar obviously elude you. The word “parents” is plural because “natives and indigenes” is plural. Obviously, if you’re talking about the fathers (plural) of natives and indigenes that have existed throughout a nations history, then parents would be rendered in the plural.
          If you were in a public place where small children are known to become separated from their parents, and you were to see a sign that said, “Children must be accompanied by their parents at all times,” would you assume that each child must have BOTH parents present? That would be idiotic. “Parents” is intended to refer to mothers and/or fathers. It would be asinine to assume that this public place would ban someone for bringing their child but without the other parent present.
          Or even, “Children must be accompanied by adults at all times.” Would you assume that each child must be accompanied by two or more adults?
          That would be, in a word, idiotic.
          If you visited a fitness center and the sign by the pool said, “Children whose parents are members may use the pool.” Are you going to assume that if children only has ONE parent that is a member, then the child is banned from the pool?
          In much the same way — and EVERY nation that has adopted the Vattelian standard, such as France, Switzerland (Vattel’s homeland) and Belgium agrees with this — the word parents only requires one parent. It is rendered in the plural because the word “children” is rendered in the plural. They are mass nouns.
          And Vattel has made it clear that he was referring to the father. And in the cases of illegitimate children, the child follows the citizenship of the mother.
          And I can prove this rule. Vattel plainly states that the children follow the condition of their fathers. Fathers, plural. I suppose you think that every child has more than one father. You must, if you’re going to assume that “parents” means that each child must have both parents as citizen in order to be a citizen themselves.

        4. p5151 says:

          PatrickJColliano ThomasCharlesNeith JesseTMims PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles your explanation of the plural “parents” is astonishing. When de Vattel said parents he meant parents….he didn’t say anything about a group of fathers…LOL  And in Minor v Happersett they specifically wrote “parents”. I guess you would interpret that to say…”well they really meant -parent”

        5. PatrickJColliano says:

          p5151 PatrickJColliano ThomasCharlesNeith JesseTMims PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles 
          No, your ignorance is astonishing. Or it would be, if you were truly ignorant. But as it is, you understand it perfectly well. You’re simply lying about it.
          Vattel did not devise a system of government that countries could or couldn’t adopt. He was describing the way governments worked in his portion of the world.
          Find one country, just one, that required both parents to be citizens to be considered a natural born citizen. Hint: you won’t. They don’t exist. They never did exist.
          Because Vattel specified that he was talking about fathers, not both parents. And yes, there are several countries, such as Germany, France, Switzerland and Belgium, that required the citizenship of the fathers. And the law was changed in all these nations in the early 1900s to allow mothers to ALSO transmit citizenship.
          So, as the laws read originally, they required the citizenship of the fathers only. Then the laws were changed to allow the fathers and/or the mothers to transmit citizenship. But no nation that Vattel could have possibly been referring to, required the citizenship of both parents.

        6. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          PatrickJColliano p5151 ThomasCharlesNeith JesseTMims PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles  When you can show me that Canada became part of the United States and when Cuba became a state in the US he might be eligible but to my recollection Canada is its own country as is Cuba. Cruz’s father was Cuban and he was born in Canada. So his mothers citizenship has no  baring on his eligibility.

        7. PatrickJColliano says:

          ThomasCharlesNeith PatrickJColliano p5151 JesseTMims PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles
          So, in other words, you know you can’t find a single country that ever required two citizen parents to be considered “natural born.” And you admit you lied and lost your both parents have to be citizens argument.
          And for the record, never said Canada or Cuba were U.S. states. They don’t have to be. Cruz was born to an American mother, which makes him a natural born citizen, no matter WHERE he was born.

      2. JesseTMims says:

        PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PeterLettkeman ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles
        Re “no source ever suggested that Vattel authored the idea of natural
        born citizenship, least of all that natural born citizenship required
        two citizen parents.”I know of no intelligent person who has
        tried to claim Vattel “authored” any portion of the laws of nations he
        compiled in his book by that name. What he DID do was to include in his
        book  the natural law that  “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens;” which translate.google.com/ says means “The natives, or indigenes are those born in the country of citizen parents” in English.
        If you enter “indigenes” by itself, you get the English word, “indigenous;” which http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous defines as follows:
        “1: produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally
        in a particular region or http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=100510461 <indigenous plants> <the indigenous culture>
        2:  http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=100510461, http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=100510461
        If you scroll down a bit further, you will find that Merriam/Webster also says  “indigenous” originates from the Latin noun, indigena; which means “native.”
        There
        is simply no way to logically argue that the Framer’s original intent
        was anything other than that “a natural born citizen is one who is born
        on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents” and that Vattel’s book was
        the reference book of the laws of nations they used when phrasing the
        natural born citizen clause of  requirements for the office of
        president.
        Re “(Vattel himself only required that children followed the citizenship of
        their FATHERS, or, in cases of illegitimate children, that the mother be
        a citizen.”
        THAT was in reference to citizens, NOT natural born citizens.
        In order to fully understand what you pulled out of context from Vattel
        is to read and comprehend the entirety of the paragraph it was lifted
        from.
        Here is that paragraph:
        Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
        The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
        certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
        advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
        country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
        perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
        children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
        their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
        owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
        each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
        becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
        children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
        shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
        renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
        I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
        born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it
        will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
        First,
        please note the heading, “Citizens and natives;” which tells us that
        what follows is to be a discussion of BOTH citizens and natives and that
        they are two distinct and separate entities. On the other hand, in the
        actual text of that paragraph, he makes it clear that NATIVES are the
        same as natural born citizens.  IF vattel had intended for CITIZENS and
        NATIVES to be considered one and the same, he would have used only ONE
        or the other of those words in the heading, not BOTH.
        The first
        sentence of that paragraph clearly defines what a citizen is. The second
        sentence just as clearly defines what a natural born citizen is.
        Since
        we know that Vattel meant for those two terms to be distinct and
        separate, we also know that he could not have intended for them to be
        taken to be interchangeable anywhere they appeared in his book. Knowing
        that, we also know that wherever “citizen” appears in “Chapter 19,  §
        212. Citizens and natives,” it CANNOT mean “natural born citizen.”
        Therefore,
        where Vattel says in the THIRD sentence, “As the society cannot exist
        and
        perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the CITIZENS, those
        children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to
        all
        their rights,” he CANNOT be talking about natural born citizens; but,
        rather, the CITIZENS he clearly defined in the FIRST sentence. Ergo, he
        is NOT saying that simply having a father who is a citizen is enough to
        grant the status of natural born citizen to a child.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          JesseTMims PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles
          Your desperately trying (and pitifully failing) to make Vattel say something he never said. He dispensed with what a citizen is in the first sentence.
          “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.”
          That is what a citizen is. And what a “native” is is dealt with in the rest of the paragraph. A native is a specific type of citizen.
          Because understanding the term “citizen,” as defined in the first sentence, could include “natural born citizens” and “naturalized citizens.”
          There is nothing in that definition that maintains that citizens themselves need to be born in the country or have either parent be a citizen of the country.
          In includes all types of citizens, both natural born and naturalized.
          And every nation that adopted this Vattelian standard (given the benefit of centuries of scholarship on this topic) agrees.  You will find NO nation, and I do mean NO nation, that has EVER adopted a standard that demands both parents be citizens. Yet, Switzerland (Vattel’s homeland) adopted the standard as outlined in “Law of Nations,” but never required both parents be citizens.
          Also the word “indigenes” has been incorrectly translated. The term NEVER meant “natural born citizen” in French, which is “citoyen de naissance.”
          Here is a standard French translation of article II section 1 clause 5 of the United States Constitution:
          Nul ne pourra être élu président s’il n’est
          citoyen de naissance, ou s’il n’est citoyen des États-Unis au moment de
          l’adoption de la présente Constitution, s’il n’a trente-cinq ans révolus
          et ne réside sur le territoire des États-Unis depuis quatorze ans.
          Note in the first line, “citoyen de naissance.” Or “citizen of birth,” which is how the French translate “natural born citizen.”

        2. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PeterLettkeman ThomasCharlesNeith SunnydSmiles

          Vattel’s
          Influence on the term
          a Natural
          Born Citizen    
          http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          ThomasCharlesNeith PatrickJColliano JesseTMims PeterLettkeman SunnydSmiles
          In a word, B.S. That is a birther site, and birthers are notorious liars. They’re interpretation of this is wrong and is a deliberate distortion, not an innocent misunderstanding.

  35. p5151 says:

    wow…this guy is way out in left field. So Congress defines what the founding fathers meant…that’s a new one. LOL And for some reason I had this ridiculous idea that the Supreme Court interpreted the law. In fact they just got through interpreting that Obamacare is a tax….go figure.  the Constitution is the “law of the land”.  Congress nor anybody else can change the law or the constitution by re-defining a term like “natural born citizen”. The original drafts contained the language “citizen born on US soil” or “born a citizen” but it was changed to “natural born citizen”. If “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” is the same thing then why would they have changed it? BTW, Title 8 sec 1401 has absolutely nothing to do with the term “natural born citizen”.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      p5151 
      If “Citizen at birth” and Natural born citizen” do NOT mean exactly the same thing, then what is the difference?  Why is there not anything, written anywhere explaining the difference?  If you are going to make the claim, like others before you, that the two terms are different, then it is incumbent upon you to support that claim.
      One of the most important principles to understand about the law is the need to define, as precisely as possible, the meanings of different terms.  Ironically, you provide a perfect example of this with the confused notion that CAB and NBC have different meanings.  In fact, they are simply two different terms for exactly the same thing.  (and if you think they are not, you need to provide evidence to that effect.)
      One cannot make law based on subjective definitions.  One of the purposes of Code Law is to define terms and ideas objectively, otherwise the law could not be implemented and administered in anything other than an arbitrary way.

      1. GregoryConterio p5151 Reasonably stated, Greg. p5151, the Constitution is the law, and establishes the framework, and one of the things it does is empower Congress to create laws (U.S. Code) to carry forth the business of the country. The Supreme Court sometimes overturns U.S. Code, based on a specific portion being deemed not consonant with the Constitution. But that does not mean that U.S. code does not exist, or is invalid.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      p5151 You don’t know what you’re talking about, to be blunt. The Supreme Court DID define natural born citizen, in the SCOTUS ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark. And yes, natural born citizen means someone who acquires their citizenship at birth.

  36. Atsme says:

    Incorrect – he is not eligible under the Constitution, but neither was Obomber, and he’s serving a 2nd term. Sen Cruz was born in Canada, and his father was not a naturalized citizen at the time.  We’ve been unable to impeach Obomber under the qualification clause, so maybe he has set a precedent.  Let’s see what happens with the NBRA’s Articles of Impeachment now that they’ve been filed.

  37. loyaltoliberty says:

    Natural-born obviously alludes to a standard established by natural, not human law. In respect of this standard, the phrase “citizen at birth” and “natural born” are therefore not synonymous. The first is established by act of Congress.  It does, as such, amend contrary provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The phrase “natural born”, by contrast, invokes an standard in nature that is antecedent to the Constitution, which it relies upon but which exists prior to and independently of it jurisdiction.  Such a standard gives rise to a claim that is, like the child’s humanity, antecedent to the Constitution.
    In material terms, this is reflected in the fact that children  are naturally born by their mothers, and have specifically recognizable traits that belong to their nature, before the moment of their birth.  So the phrase natural born points to a condition that exists prior to birth and on account of purely natural determinations. This makes the trait “citizen” like the trait “human”, something that can be recognized by an act of Congress, but that is not established (i.e., brought into the child’s being) by that act of recognition.  Of course, by analogy with purely material genetic traits, the information responsible for the trait must be present in one or both of the parents from conception, else it is not a natural fact but a fabrication of subsequent law.
    This reasoning does not invalidate the conclusion reached in the article.  It is simply meant to respect the Constitution’s reference to the standard of nature. On account of this reliance, no conclusion as to the eligibility of an individual for the office of President can be justified on the basis of exclusively man-made law. Rather the reasoning involved must formally respect the bonds, established by nature, that tie one generation of humanity to the next.  This means of course that the U.S. Constitution formally acknowledges the lawfulness of claims based upon these bonds, which are the basis, among other things, for the rights, antecedent to the Constitution, which its 9th amendment forbids its interpreters to disparage or deny.

    1. loyaltoliberty says:

      In the third sentence of the first para. of this comment the sentence should read “It does not…” etc.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      loyaltoliberty wrote: “In respect of this standard, the phrase “citizen at birth” and “natural born” are therefore not synonymous.”
      Yes, they are.

      1. loyaltoliberty says:

        PatrickJColliano loyaltoliberty  I make a reasonably correct and logical argument for the conclusion  I accept, based on the difference between natural and man made law.  You assert that the conclusion is wrong, but give no reasoning to support your assertion.  If my reasoning is incorrect, please show me where I go wrong.  Otherwise, why should I or any other American concerned to preserve our God endowed unalienable rights abandon the standard of reasonableness America’s founders respected as they fought to establish those rights?

        1. loyaltoliberty PatrickJCollianoI know that Patrick will answer in his own time and his own way. And, frankly, he has way more information on this subject than I. AND, we will soon be releasing a detailed primer on all these questions.
          In the meantime, please allow me to speak as someone who, like you, recognizes the essential and genuine difference between natural and civil law. Indeed, I am a die-hard natural-rights, social-contractarian libertarian. I believe to the very bottom of the fiber of my being in the pre-existence and preeminence of natural rights and natural law.
          That being said, the dichotomy between natural and man-made law has no bearing on the definition of natural-born citizen, nor on whether the law sees a distinction between natural-born citizen and citizen at birth. Just like the overall question of eligibility for the presidency, those are questions that are decided by man’s law. And man’s law is clear on both. And really, truly, there is no distinction.
          These waters have been muddied by a lot of bad information. This bad information didn’t serve to get Barack Obama un-elected (though it did waste a lot of time that could have been better spent), and now those same muddy waters are washing over Ted Cruz.

        2. loyaltoliberty says:

          WesternFreePress loyaltoliberty PatrickJColliano
          Unless human law determines the content of natural law (thus usurping the authority of the Creator) the reference to nature in the phrase “natural born citizen” points to a standard beyond man-made law.  You make an assertion contrary to the self-evident import of the words the Constitution employs, without offering any reasonable explanation for the assertion.  
          By making no distinction between a citizen naturally born (i.e., born in consequence of relations arising directly from nature) and a citizen made such by human law or regulation), you effectively excise the phrase “natural born” from the Constitution.  Since you make this amendment without regard for the procedure for amendment the Constitution prescribes, you are substituting your whim for the Constitution’s words in contravention of the Constitution’s terms.
          You say that eligibility is “decided by man’s law”.  But the natural law is prescribed by the Creator, not by man.  Your contrary assertion would deny the obligations connected with the natural bond between parents and their children, along with the authority and and rights those obligations entail.  You pretend to be committed to respect for the natural law, but want to deny its relevance when it comes to the God endowed obligations and rights of the family, which is the primordial paradigm for human community, as determined by the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
          Given the Framer’s reference to the standard of nature, the argument I make is simple and clearly based upon the Constitution’s terms.  If you have an argument that is also based upon the clear plain meaning of the words, make it. Pretending that to understand those words requires some arcane knowledge, and convoluted reasoning (which I suppose only the high priests and pooh-bahs of the legal profession understand) is simply a way of saying that “we the people”, now bereft of reason and common sense, and must leave it to our betters to understand and interpret the form of government we ourselves have ordained and established.
          Why would anyone who claims to honor America’s Founders thus abandon THEIR willingness to respect and appeal to the reason and plain common sense they saw as attributes of the “genius” of the American people?

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          loyaltoliberty PatrickJColliano It’s been my experience that people who are convinced of the ineligibility of Obama and Cruz don’t listen to reason. How many courts have to tell you? How often do you need to be told by every Congressman by their silence that this is ridiculous?
          Don’t you think, in light of what’s happening now, in Congress, that the Republicans, who are doing their best to stop the passage of Obamacare, would bring this up at some point?
          The way I see it, you have two choices if you wish to hold this position. 1) Either Congress is in on this conspiracy, or 2) Congress is just almighty freaking STUPID, with their staffs of professionals, lawyers that they just don’t know what a natural born citizen is. But somehow, you, who probably doesn’t have a tenth of their resources, understand it better.
          Is that rational?
          The more rational explanation is that YOU SIMPLY DON’T HAVE IT RIGHT!
          But no, the entire country including lawyers and judges, except for a handful of individuals like you, are just so totally ignorant about this. You on the other hand (who probably never even heard of Vattel prior to 2009) just understand it so much better than the rest of the country.
          So, don’t quote logic to me. You and logic parted company the second you became a birther.
          I could argue this point, and I know I’m right about it. But would you even bother to listen?

        4. SunnydSmiles says:

          loyaltoliberty WesternFreePress PatrickJColliano Give it up..They both think they are smarter than everyone else….and will not accept another view–PERIOD….

        5. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          PatrickJColliano loyaltoliberty  If you had done your homework and research you’d know that the DNC never vetted Obama and have made statements to the fact that they knew he was not eligible.

        6. PatrickJColliano says:

          loyaltoliberty WesternFreePress PatrickJCollianoYou’re joking, right? You think “natural born citizen” is a divine concept? Pray, tell me, where in the Bible (or any other religious tome) do you find the phrase “natural born citizen.”
          Citizenship is a human concept. There is no proof that the Creator has any concept whatsoever of citizenship.
          You wrote: “By making no distinction between a citizen naturally born (i.e., born in
          consequence of relations arising directly from nature) and a citizen
          made such by human law or regulation), you effectively excise the phrase
          “natural born” from the Constitution.”
          Straw man. No one said there’s no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Citizen refers to both types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
          A natural born citizen is one who is a citizen from birth. A naturalized citizen is someone who must jump through legal hoops in order to become a citizen. A natural born citizen therefore is a TYPE of citizen.
          And the Supreme Court disagrees with you that natural law is the source of the term “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, like many other terms in the Constitution (like eminent domain, habeas corpus, bill of attainder, etc.,) the term “natural born” comes to us from from English common law.
          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “The Constitution of the United States, as originally
          adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.'”
          With me so far? The Constitution uses the terms “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen of the United States.”
          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
          “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of
          these words,…”
          I think we can agree on this. The Constitution uses these terms, but does not define them. Unless you think you see a definition of “natural born citizen” somewhere in the Constitution, like a glossary.
          “In this as in other
          respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
          principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of
          the Constitution.”
          Aha! Not natural law, but the Constitution must be interpreted in the light of COMMON LAW!
          And they go on to cite SIX different court cases, to support their contention that English common law is used to establish precedent. Makes sense. The term “natural born” is right out of common law, first appearing in Calvin’s Case (or Case of the Postnati) in 1608. 150 years BEFORE Vattel wrote The Law of Nations.
          So, you can claim “natural law,” or “divine law” all you want. The Supreme Court, charged with interpreting the Constitution, says, B.S. It’s English common law.
          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
          “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is
          necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the
          language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of
          its history.”
          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
          And so they go into a lengthy foray into English common law, citing numerous cases and noted authorities on the common law of England, and conclude:
          “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England
          for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this
          country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the
          dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
          allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the
          power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every
          child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
          the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State
          or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child
          was born.
          “III. The same rule was in force in all the English
          Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of
          Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to
          prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
          Simply put, a child born in England to aliens was considered a “natural born subject” and the U.S. has always observed “the same rule.”

        7. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles loyaltoliberty WesternFreePress PatrickJColliano
          That’s terribly ironic, coming from you, Miss Mouth-Like-A-Drunken-Sailor.
          On the contrary, it is YOU who think you’re so much smarter than everyone else.
          So, all the judges who ruled that Obama is eligible are just wrong. All their years of study and experience in U.S. law and you, with your untrained mind, just understands it so much better than everyone else, huh?

        8. SunnydSmiles says:

          PatrickJColliano loyaltoliberty Same CASE….just argues DIFFERENT than you do!

          http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

        9. PatrickJColliano says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano loyaltoliberty  It is You are aware, of course, that the person you’re quoting is no longer a lawyer, right? He quit the birther movement, and his law practice, AND his argument once he realized he was wrong.
          Leo Donofrio was a TERRIBLY incompetent lawyer. He hasn’t found a SINGLE judge, not a ONE that agrees with him. (Hint: You never will, either.)

        10. RickBulow says:

          SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano is right. you and loyaltoliberty are WRONG! COMMON SENSE and the LAW agree with us

        11. GregoryConterio says:

          loyaltoliberty WesternFreePress PatrickJColliano Actually, I believe you make a mistake by insisting the use of the word “natural” in Natural Born Citizen can only mean it comes from nature.
          First, the concept of being a “citizen” or “subject” of a state has nothing to do with nature or natural law.  A state, and the concept of being a citizen is an entirely human construct.  A state is an arbitrarily selected patch of land, organized and administered by a likewise arbitrary set of rules and standards developed by it’s inhabitants.  Therefore defining what a citizen is falls entirely under human law, not natural law.  In the context of the term “Natural Born Citizen” the word “Natural” simply means one whose citizenship was perfected by the event of their birth, and did not require any affirmative action on the part of the state or the person in question.
          Second, it is established beyond question that the term Natural Born Citizen comes from English Common Law.  While the meaning of the term did evolve over the centuries, it’s meaning at the time of the founders was well-documented, and follows the definition found in Title 8, Subsection 1401 of the U.S. Code as referenced in the above article.
          Third, there is not one scrap of evidence or case law supporting your interpretation.  None.

  38. Waste of time says:

    That dosen’t make him leader material. His father made his money sucking off the poor as a self proclaimed minister.  Cruz himself is becoming one of the most despised in this country even by his own party.  There is no tea party on the election ballot and that is exactly what this fool is and will remain. He is destroying the Republican party.  Basically this self proclaimed savior of the country needs to go back to Canada and try to destroy their economy.  I’m sure he will be just as successful as he is in this one.

    1. Waste of time Can you tell me . . . what does the Republican Party stand for today? John McCain, Mitch McConnell, etc. ignoring the tactical logic of doing X, Y, or Z and just focusing for a moment on principle . . . what do they stand for?

    1. RickBulow says:

      nopainsnogainesYou are wrong. Ted Cruz IS eligible.

    2. GregoryConterio says:

      nopainsnogaines  – Instead of calling people names, why don’t you tell us why Cruz is ineligible?

      1. GregoryConterionopainsnogainesYes, really—why on earth would you use the word “traitor” in this circumstance? Whatever the relative merits of any argument re: eligibility, why on earth would that word apply to Ted Cruz? Please explain.

  39. p5151 says:

    citizen at birth and natural born citizen are NOT the same thing. In fact the original draft of the Constitution had intended to use the term “born a citizen” but it was changed to “natural born citizen” to eliminate the chance of foreign influence in the commander in chief. If the two terms meant the same thing then why would they change it??? whoever wrote this crap is way out in left field.

    1. RickBulow says:

      p5151you are wrong. COMMON SENSE dictates that natural born citizen and citizen at birth are the same thing.

      There are ONLY TWO types of citizens: Natural born and naturalized. NO other. NO subsets of either. ONLY TWO. And Ted Cruz IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN on the basis of HIS MOTHER being an American citizen. Read 8 USC 1401 and LEARN THE TRUTH

      1. RickBulowp5151Yes, even if the eligibility challengers were correct in some sort of moral way, i.e., “this is what the Framers *meant*, so it should be what the law says, they are STILL incorrect according to the actual law. There is no way around it.

        1. RickBulow says:

          WesternFreePressI have been exposing and debunking the false premises thatp5151and his ilk had been saying about natural born citizen ever since May of 2012 when Marco Rubio was mentioned as being on Mitt Romney’s short list for running mate. I had done the actual research on this and had basically proven that parentage has nothing to do with being a natural born citizen if the person was born in the United States. Thanks to your article and a couple of others I had done research on what happens if a person was born outside of the United States and have come to find out that if at least one parent is an American citizen then the baby is a natural born American citizen. Keep up the good work!

        2. RickBulowWesternFreePressp5151Thnaks, and yes, that is correct. If you are born on U.S. soild, you are a natural-born U.S. citizen. If you are born off of U.S. soil, then USC 1401 is the governing law. And USC 1401 is pretty danged clear. 

          If the eligibility challenger crowd wants a different standard applied, they’re going to need to lobby for changes in U.S. law. But U.S. law as it currently stands is very clear.

          We will be coming out with a comprehensive primer on this subject later this month.

        3. For_My_Liberty says:

          WesternFreePressRickBulowp5151You know, it is kind of funny that you REFUSE to accept FACTS that are put before you OVER and OVER again. You NEGLECT in your argument to remember that the Constitution states “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”

           SCOTUS opinion in Minor vs Happersett speak of Naturalized Citizens, Citizen and Natural Born. The Federalist papers lead one with common sense to the definitation of Natural Born which the SCOTUS defined in that case. Discussions between the writers LEAD one to understand the meaning of “Natural Born” when they discuss the need to have a POTUS with NO allegiances to another Country

          Y’all can claim and argue your view till you are blue in the face, but that does not make it right, and deeming those that disagree with you “Ilk” to belittle them does not make your argument any MORE right, or YOU any more intelligent. 

          YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion just as those that disagree with you are entitled to OURS, but that is EXACTLY what BOTH are–OPINIONS. Unless, and UNTIL ONE or the OTHER is argued in COURT and deemed RIGHT by a Judge in present day, NEITHER HAS ANY STANDING!

          Rick, you think you are the ONLY one that has done RESEARCH?  Each and EVERY one of us that believe the way we DO has researched this for YEARS, and WE STAND on what WE believe. You have not “Proven” ANYTHING except to YOURSELF!

  40. p5151 says:

    yes, there are two types of citizens…born a citizen and naturalized. However there are subsets of “born a citizen”….one being a “natural born citizen” and the other from the 14th amendment…this guy is so confused.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      p5151 Really P5151?  Why don’t you show us where these different “subsets” of citizen are defined?  Surely there must be some court case or code law somewhere?  The 14th Amendment was written specifically to prevent the former slave states from disenfranchising any of the former slaves.  The relevant portion reads: “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.”  Please explain how this simple sentence creates multiple definitions of “born citizens.”

      1. p5151 says:

        GregoryConterio p5151 Ok…you posted the quotation from the 14th amendment….”all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States…” Your problem is that you have this problem of referring to the term “citizen” as if it were the same thing as a “natural born citizen”. Any beginning law student is taught that you cannot change what is written in law…you cannot add to or subtract from written law. Do you see the term “natural born citizen” in what you just posted??? No you don’t…you just added it yourself.

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          p5151 GregoryConterio ..I can make no sense at all of what you are saying here.  The 14th Amendment says what it says.  Anyone who is 1. Born in the U.S. or 2. Naturalized, is a citizen.  It does not define “Natural Born” or mention those words.  It also does not exclude, either implicitly or explicitly any other conditional qualifications which are routinely incorporated into the Common Law definition of NBC.
          I’m not a law student, but even so it is plainly obvious your comment about not being able to add-to or subtract-from the written law is false.  The law is added-to and subtracted-from by the legislative process more or less constantly, not to mention the judicial process which subtracts from the law each time something is overturned or struck-down.

      2. p5151 says:

        GregoryConterio p5151 have you forgotten Minor v Happersett? Also, the 14th amendment was written to allow slaves to become citizens. However, the 14th amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with the term “natural born citizen”. If you disagree, can you show all of us where the 14th amendment defines the term “natural born citizen”?

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          p5151 GregoryConterio ..I have actually read Minor v. Happersett.  It does not define NBC either.  What it does do is acknowledge that Congress alone has the power to define NBC, as well as the fact that there are only two legally recognized types of citizen: at birth, and naturalized.  You should probably read it yourself.
          Of course the 14th does not say anything about NBC.  I never claimed it did.  You are the one who brought it up: “….one being a “natural born citizen” and the other from the 14th amendment…this guy is so confused.”

        2. For_My_Liberty says:

          GregoryConteriop5151And THAT is a LIE, but then again. I am not surprised. Minor DOES indeed DEFINE Natural Born Citizen…READ IT AGAIN–THIS TIME with your EYES OPEN!

        3. @For_My_LibertyGregoryConteriop5151Can you place the excerpt here where it does?

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      ThomasCharlesNeith  These arguments have already been dealt-with.
      Vattel never used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” so how could anything he wrote possibly serve as the “definition?”  In addition, he (Vattel) had little influence on the Framers.  Vattel used the word “indegenes” which does NOT translate to “Natural born Citizen.  Furthermore, there is no reference to Vattel in ANY Majority opinion issued by the SCOTUS.  NOT ONE!  The only references ever made to Vattel are from DISSENTING opinions, or concurrences, which do not carry the force of law or precedent.  The only part of any SCOTUS ruling which matters in terms of law or precedent are the majority opinions.  Not that it matters, because not only did Vattel never use the term, he acknowledged the same single citizen-parent standard used in common law at the time!  None of the cases cited in this piece contains anything which can be remotely construed as a “definition” of Natural Born Citizen” for the simple reason that the question of defining that term was not a material question before the court in any of them!  In fact, the case of Wong Kim Ark clearly establishes that Congress has the authority to define the term, which is indeed defined in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, subsection 1401, and further concludes there are only two types of citizen: Naturalized, and “at birth” (which is synonymous with NBC)

      1. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

        GregoryConterio
        Book 1, Chapter 19 paragraph
        § 212. Citizens and natives.
        The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
        certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
        advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
        country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
        perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
        children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
        their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
        owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
        each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
        becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
        children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
        shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
        renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
        I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
        born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it
        will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

        1. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          GregoryConterio: Cruz takes his fathers citizenship which at the time of his birth was Cuban, plus the fact that he was born on Canadian soil makes him ineligible as a NBC.

        2. GregoryConterio says:

          ThomasCharlesNeith GregoryConterio It is well-known that translations of The Law of Nations which substituted the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” for the word “indigenes” were not available until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written, therefore it could not have possibly been a source for the meaning of this phrase.  All translations of the book available to the Framers used the word “indigenes.”
          And this does not change the fact that Vattel never used the term himself, nor the fact that the word “indigenes” does NOT translate to that phrase.  Had Vattel, who spoke and wrote in French, meant to say “Natural Born Citizen” he would have used the phrase “citoyen
          de naissance” which is French for those words.  As a side-note, I find it terribly ironic and entertaining that people who absolutely insist the phrases “Citizen at Birth” and “Natural Born Citizen” mean entirely different things, also insist the legal definition for the latter phrase comes exclusively from a man who never used it!
          There also remain the facts that SCOTUS precedent clearly establishes that the source of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is English common Law, and that Congress alone has the power to define this term.

        3. p5151 says:

          GregoryConterio ThomasCharlesNeith I’m afraid you are wrong once again…the founding fathers used de Vattel often during the construction of the constitution. They also referred to de Vattel repeatedly…. you say they never used de Vattel…boloney…. Plus English common law referred to their citizens as “subjects”. The founding fathers rejected that term in favor of the term “citizens”. They weren’t too fond of English common law.  I can bring you many quotes from the founding fathers referencing the Law of Nations and de Vattel…you really must do some research. And you do know that John Jay and many others spoke fluent French.

        4. GregoryConterio says:

          p5151 GregoryConterio ThomasCharlesNeith 
          Nonsense.  I didn’t say “..they never used Vattel…” I said he had little influence.  Show me the evidence that his influence was anything more that minor.  He certainly had zero-influence on the definition of NBC because he NEVER used that term!  By all means, find some evidence where the Framers explicitly acknowledge Vattel as their model or inspiration.  Good luck.
          The Founders “weren’t to fond of English Common Law?”  That is absolutely absurd, and objectively disprovable by the many references and acknowledgments of Common Law as the primary source of our own.  For example:
          “The
          interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily
          influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the
          English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” -from Smith v. Alabama, as quoted in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark

          Then there is the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of the states adopted English Common Law.  The Framers substituted the term citizens for subjects  because they no longer were subjects!  What republic refers to its people as subjects?  They deliberately substituted the word citizens because there was no sovereign, and because the government was intended to submit to the People.

        5. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          GregoryConterio: The original Law of Nations was written in French and the the word indigenes is French. At the time of the writing of the Constitution French was the language of Diplomacy and most or all of the founders where well versed in French.If the father was a citizen when the child was born then yes citizen at birth would apply, but to be natural born both parents had to be citizens. And were you to look at English Common law there is no reference to citizens as was all British people were SUBJECTS and their allegiance was to the King/Queen, the reason the founders used The Law of Nations as their guide while writing the Constitution.

        6. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          GregoryConteriop5151: http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

        7. For_My_Liberty says:

          p5151GregoryConterioThomasCharlesNeithGive it up p5151…The author and his “friends” refuse to accept ANYTHING anyone says. One might THINK that they are not so much for Cruz “Legally” being POTUS as they are MORE for doing this to give Ovomit a cover for his FAKE Presidency. You can post until you are blue in the face and these jackass’s won’t admit they are wrong–EVEN when you PUT the FACTS right in their faces…I gave up long ago….just some friendly advice..*s*

        8. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          p5151: I’m on your side. All my research into this subject has been for Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations. As I stated French was the language used for Diplomacy and Franklin, Jefferson where both Ambassador’s to France.

        9. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          GregoryConterio:

          United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
          In this http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#649,
          Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S.
          Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th
          Amendment.  In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the
          court.  On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in
          Minor vs. Happersett:

          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.

          On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion
          coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in
          the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States.  The Court gave
          a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship
          to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and
          foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term
          “natural born citizen.”

        10. ThomasCharlesNeith says:

          Apparently you haven’t done much research into early court cases. (Supreme Court)

        11. GregoryConteriop5151ThomasCharlesNeithThey “weren’t fond of English Common Law?” What? You really are joking, right? They were fighting to preserve what they saw as their rights as Englishmen: Every hard-won gain in human liberty that had taken place as a result of the English’s head-start in that arena, from the Magna Carta through the parliamentary revolutions, the Enlightenment, and of course, Common Law. Goodness gracious, the American Revolution was not a battle of “Americans” against foreigners. It began as an English civil war! They were fighting against what they saw as tyranny, and the autocratic rule of a German king whom they did not trust. They revered Common Law, and all of the liberties they saw as an Anglo-Saxon birthright. Common Law formed the basis for much of what they created.

          Look, I cannot stand Barack Obama. There is little limit to the degree of negativity in my opinion of him, what he stands for, and what he is doing. I want him gone as much as you do. But that desire cannot lead us to think crazy, untrue things.

        12. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterioThomasCharlesNeith

          Another
          argument is that Vattel was not talking about natural born Citizens in “The
          Laws of Nations” because naturels was only translated that way after the
          Constitution was written. In the Journals of the Continental Congress,
          1774-1789 27 July 1781
          you will find “A memorial from the honable the Minister of France” was read. In
          the Translation you will find the word naturels translated to natural born
          almost six years prior to the adoption of the Constitution.
          http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DATE+17810727%29::

        13. GregoryConterio says:

          @For_My_Liberty p5151 GregoryConterio ThomasCharlesNeith What I and others have done is provide documentary evidence which refutes your position.  It is the truth.  It is ones such as you who “refuse to accept it” by ignoring these documented facts, and continuing to recycle obviously disproved statements and arguments.
          Resorting to name-calling and denigration is the sure sign you have already lost the argument.  If you “gave up long ago” you should probably stay that way.  What’s that old adage about keeping quiet and being thought a fool?

        14. GregoryConterio says:

          ThomasCharlesNeith GregoryConterio None of which changes the fact that he never used the term Natural Born citizen.”
          You and anyone else have yet to answer: How can he possibly be the authority on the definition of a term he never used?  And why if he “obviously” was the source, does every SCOTUS majority opinion having to do with citizenship cite English Common Law as the source of its definition?  You have completely ignored the quotations and citations of judicial precedent I have provided.  It’s not me who has “not done any research.”  Repeating such things is a lame dodge to continue avoiding answering such questions.

        15. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterioThomasCharlesNeith
          Incorrect it was not 10 years after but 6 years prior.
          Another
          argument is that Vattel was not talking about natural born Citizens in “The
          Laws of Nations” because naturels was only translated that way after the
          Constitution was written. In the Journals of the Continental Congress,
          1774-1789 27 July 1781http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/
          you will find “A memorial from the honable the Minister of France” was read. In
          the Translation you will find the word naturels translated to natural born
          almost six years prior to the adoption of the Constitution.

          [1]http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1

        16. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConteriop5151ThomasCharlesNeith
          From http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5YcUprzLYWGkAXer4GIBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vattel%27s%20law%20of%20nations&f=falsehttp://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/#_ftn2, p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the
          time of the American Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most
          popular, if not the most authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations
          of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the
          writings of the time. Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more
          frequently than his predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law
          of Nature upon International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American
          Journal of International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.

          http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/#_ftnref1http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1

        17. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConteriop5151ThomasCharlesNeith

          Was Vattel a favorite book of some of the
          founders, and may have been influential in the development of our Constitution?
          Judging by this http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1 from Benjamin Franklin to
          Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December, 1775 it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you
          have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the
          circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law
          of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our
          own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts
          Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our
          Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and
          have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
          http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1

        18. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio ThomasCharlesNeith 
          So according to your logic, If I were to write a letter in English in which I used the word “wagon” and somebody translated that letter into French, substituting the word “chariot” for “wagon” the two words are now synonymous.  “Wagon” now means “chariot” simply because someone mistranslated the word.  This is plainly absurd.  Essentially you are saying that because some other person miss-translated a word from a letter written by a completely different individual on an unrelated matter, THAT means Vattel defined NBC.  That is one of the more convoluted explanations I have heard.
          Again, there is absolutely zero evidence Vattel was the source of the meaning of the term.
          At BEST, the term NBC is clearly ambiguous, even if one claims Vattel is the only authoritative source, because there are conflicting translations of the words he used.  Ambiguous terms cannot possibly carry any legal weight.  They must be precisely defined.
          And again, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever the Framers used Vattel as a source.  The term NBC PLAINLY comes from English Common Law, which is where it was first used, and English Common Law is acknowledged as the source of the meaning of “citizen” in both Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark.
          I continue to find it amazing that people like you are on the one hand so willing to split hairs, insisting that NBC and CaB mean entirely different things, yet immediately turn-around and insist either naturels or indigenes (but not both!) means NBC exactly.  Your arguments are completely inconsistent.

        19. PeterLettkeman says:

          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanThomasCharlesNeith
          First off Natives or natural born citizens are one in the same in context of that sentence. It could be said more like this. Natives or other wise known as natural born Citizens… They are not two different things. 
          Back to the discussion. Six years prior to the Constitution it was translated in the Continental Congress record, as shown previously.   Ten years after in the English translation of the book it is used.

          http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html Vattel
          is cited six times in this case to include this statement; “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.”
          http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html
          http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html Vattel is cited four times in this case to include
          thisstatement; “By this same writer it is also said: “The citizens are the members
          of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to
          its authority; they equally participate
          in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the
          country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself
          otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow
          the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
          http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html
           Nope it was a fluke that it was translated by one man that way. But above you will see it more than once. It was a fluke that John Jay put that in his letter to George Washington who was the President of the Constitutional convention. Nope there is no way that letter hand any influence. Alexander Hamilton who was John Jays delegate to the convention authored that requirement.. Nope just a down right coincidence that could ever happen.
          In books from less than fifty years after the Constitution.

          Elementary
          Catechism on the Constitution of the United States: For the Use by
          Schools by Arthur Joseph Stansbury: 1828

          http://archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich#page/48/mode/2up in reference to the President:
          Q. May any person be chosen
          President of the United States?
          A.Not every person; none may
          be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when
          the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than
          thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for
          fourteen years.

          http://archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich#page/48/mode/2up
           Must be born in the United States. Nope just 50+ years after the constitution they had it all wrong and were teaching it in schools according to you.
           
          NBC and CAB are not the same thing. This can be said and maybe you will get it.
          CAB = Dogs
          NBC = Poodles
          All Poodles are Dogs but not all Dogs are Poodles. Pretty simple huh? 
          Done for tonight it is after midnight here in Japan and time to hit
          the bed. The more I discuss this issue with you guys the clearer my
          argument becomes to me. You just reinforce to me that you do not have
          any idea of what you are arguing.

        20. PeterLettkeman says:

          Oh and show me where you find a conflicting translation of that sentence. Please post a link so I can read it when I get a chance. Haven’t been able to find that anywhere. 
          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanThomasCharlesNeith

        21. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman
          GregoryConterio
           ThomasCharlesNeith
           This is typical of the sort of “argument” I see from you, Peter.  In The Venus the only citation of Vattel related to citizenship is from the dissenting opinion, which carries no force of precedent or law.  What’s more, even in this opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall said Vattel was “not very full on this point” meaning he does not consider Vattel’s opinion on the matter of citizenship to be very adequate.
          All other references to Vattel in the majority opinion have to do with his writings on what he describes as having domicile, or foreign nationals residing in another country, not the question of citizenship.
          In Scott . Sanford  (Yes, the infamous Dred Scott ruling!) you repeat the same error by citing not the majority opinion, written by Justice Taney, but a concurrence written by Justice Daniel, who ironically cites another passage from Vattel:
          “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”
          So in Vattel’s own words, Ted Cruz’s parent’s were foreigners permitted to stay in Canada, which simply was the place of Ted Cruz’s birth, not the country of his birth.

          Either you have failed to “have any idea what you are arguing,” or you are dishonestly portraying the opinions of these cases.
          My statement was there is not one reference to Vattel’s opinion about citizenship in any MAJORITY opinion by the SCOTUS, and this remains absolutely true.  Vattel obviously wrote about a lot of other things besides citizenship, and can be found cited in many SCOTUS rulings, but pointing to a few of these to try to refute my statement about Vattel’s writings on citizenship is dishonest.

        22. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio ThomasCharlesNeith According to John Greshak, one of your “fellow-Birthers,” both the 1760 and 1787 English translations translated the paragraph in question as “natives and indigenes…”  You can see photocopies of the relevant pages on his web page:
          http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
          So which is it, Peter?  Naturels or Indigenes?  The cannot BOTH mean “Natural Born Citizens.”  The answer of course is neither.  If Vattel had meant to say Natural Born Citizens he would have said citoyen
          de naissance.
          Vattel never used that term.  Period.  I remain amazed that on the one-hand you vehemently insist on the hair-splitting arguments that NBC is not the same thing as Citizen at Birth (as used in U.S.C 8 – 1401) and that English Common Law cannot be the source because Englishmen were subjects not citizens, but in the next breath insist that one of two French words, is ABSOLUTELY SYNONYMOUS with NBC.
          This is an amazingly dishonest intellectual exercise on your part.

        23. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanGregoryConterioThomasCharlesNeith
           
          Peter writes: “Vattel
          is cited six times in this case to include this statement; “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.”
          The citation above is not from the ruling of The Venus; as always, Peter lies. That is from a dissenting opinion. As such, it carries no judicial weight.
          Moreover, Vattel was not used for any question regarding citizenship, but for the finer distinction of citizens of one country residing in another.
          Peter not only misrepresents the opinion he cites, but compounds his offense by taking it out of context.
          In the opinion of the court itself, Vattel is referenced, but dismissed as “not much if any help,” and called a “mere elementary writer on the law of nations.” And his principles were soundly rejected by the court in this case, in favor of the policy of England.

          Peter writes: “http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.htmlhttp://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-serve-as-president/ Vattel is cited four times in this case to include
          this statement; “By this same writer it is also said: “The citizens are the members
          of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to
          its authority; they equally participate
          in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the
          country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself
          otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow
          the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
          That is a lie. Vattel was cited in a concurring opinion, NOT in the case itself. A concurring opinion carries NO judicial weight, none. It does not create any precedent in which the courts must observe.

        24. PeterLettkeman says:

          Patrick I never said it was either side of the argument. My intent is that it is cited as part of the case in reference to the argument that Vattel wasn’t part of the legal lexicon of the time as people have argued. Is he not mentioned that many times in the file for that case? Please search and you will find that I am correct. 
          PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanGregoryConterioThomasCharlesNeith

        25. PeterLettkeman says:

          As I answered to Patrick who argued the same point. I state that Vattel is cited X amount of times in that case. I didn’t say that it was part of either opinion, just that it is cited in reference to the argument that Vattel was not part of the legal lexicon of the day. No I’m begining to wonder if Patrick is the puppet or Greg is one of you has a hand up the the other one running the comments because they are very similar.
          Are you the puppet Gregory or is Patrick?

          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanThomasCharlesNeith

        26. PeterLettkeman says:

          Thanks for the link it has some great things to reference!  As I said in one of my final posts last night. The sentence is to be read like this. Natives or in other words (Indigines) natural born Citizens. They are not two different people but one in the same.
            
          U.S.C. 8 -1401 is the same as INA 301. Nationals and Citizens at Birth are not Natural born citizens.
          (a) is in reference to people born in the U.S. regardless of parentage but are not Natural Born Citizens. OBAMA, JINDAL, HALEY, RUBIO, AND SANTORUM.
          (b) is in reference to member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe
          (c) is in reference to people born outside the United States to two Citizens
          (d) is in reference to people born outside the United States to one Citizen and a NATIONAL who is not a citizen.
          (e) is in reference to the people of Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.
          (f) is in reference to alien orphan
          (g) is in reference to children born to at least one parent within the guidelines post 1952. TED CRUZ.
          (h) is in reference to people born outside the U.S. prior to 1934 of an Alien father and Citizen Mother and people born in Puerto Rico post 1899.
          When I was born of to two U. S. Citizens in the United states I relied on no statute to make me a citizen. I am a Natural Born Citizen.
          If I was born to one Alien parent and one U.S. Citizen at some point in my life I could claim citizenship in the alien parents country. Here is an example for Japan. http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/acs/tacs-7118.html. I am still a citizen at birth but I am not a natural born citizen because I can pick my citizenship. I didn’t say I was a dual citizen, I said I could chose at some point.
          If I was born overseas to two U.S. citizens on a military installation. I only gain citizenship by parentage and not location. I therefore am not a natural born citizen for I require a statute and confirmation of my citizenship from the consulate.

          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanThomasCharlesNeith

        27. PeterLettkeman says:

          If you use the common Ctrl+f function and type in Vattel you will find
          his name 6 times. I assumed you were intelligent enough to know how to
          use common office shortcuts but I guess I was mistaken.  To clarify because you can’t understand what I wrote, here is the link to the case @http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html  and exactly what I said in my post. I said and I quote “The Supreme Court of which John Jay was the
          first Chief Justice has never ruled on the eligibility of who could be
          President based off of the Natural Born Citizen clause, this is true, but they
          have made reference to who are natural born citizens in several cases.” 
          I said “references” I did not say it was part of the opinion dissenting or otherwise.

          PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanGregoryConterioThomasCharlesNeith

        28. For_My_Liberty says:

          PeterLettkemanGregoryConterioThomasCharlesNeith Guess they forgot about the argument over McCain when he ran…OH, WAIT. Didn’t CONGRESS Declare that McCain WAS indeed a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, having TWO Citizen parents?? and correct me if I am wrong..but OBAMA HIMSELF voted on that???? 

          The hypocrisy of Obama voting that McCain was a Natural born Citizen and that HE just slid by with no notice to go on to become only the 2ND POTUS in the HISTORY of the United States that did NOT meet the eligibility requirements…and now, people want to put Cruz in who ALSO does NOT meet the requirements…. I believe the LEFT is trying anything and everything they can to twist, change, and ignore the Constitution and the sad part is that ignorant people are helping them. “That would be at least TWO of the posters on here…

      2. p5151 says:

        GregoryConterio ThomasCharlesNeith you can read John Jay’s letter to George Washington and get a really good definition of the term “natural born citizen”. After all…isn’t that exactly what we’re looking for? the intent of the founding fathers? John Jay spoke fluent French and in his explanation to Washington on changing the requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” explained how it wouldn’t be wise to have any foreign influence as our commander in chief. Your explanation of natural born citizen is in direct conflict with John Jay…after all, how can you say that Ted Cruz doesn’t have any foreign influence…he was born in Canada and he’s a CANADIAN!!! What if he had been born in Iran like Vallerie Jarrett….would you have a problem with that???

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          p5151 GregoryConterio ThomasCharlesNeith  Do you mean THIS LETTTER:
          http://s477.photobucket.com/user/stevesharp2918/media/JohnJay-NBCletter.jpg.html
          The one that does not define the term, or cite Vattel as the source of its meaning?
          How can my “explanation” be in “direct conflict” with Jay when he give no meaning or definition at all?
          My “explanation” is not mine at all.  It is drawn from English Common Law, which has been repeatedly cited as the authoritative source of the meaning by SCOTUS rulings.  In fact, the only people anywhere I have ever seen give Vattel credit for the meaning of this term are Birthers!

  41. PeterLettkeman says:

    I have
    been part of more than one discussion in the last five years about who or what
    a Natural Born Citizen is. I have done my own research and this is what I have
    come up with.
    Let us start at the beginning of our nation,
    shall we?
    First there are three types of citizens in
    our country. You have Natural Born Citizens who are children born in the U.S.
    to Citizen Parents as defined by nature; these are the only class of citizen
    that are eligible to be President if they are born after 1787. Then you have
    Citizens at Birth which you will find in http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html of the Immigration and
    Naturalization Act (1952) and naturalized citizens who come to our country as immigrants
    found http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD, which are ineligible to be President.
    In the following paper I will explain who the men behind the clause were, why
    they did it, and where I feel we have gone wrong on the subject.
    Some will say that the founding fathers used
    the definition of natural born subjects from British common law.I find it odd that a group of people trying
    to create a brand new country, separate themselves from a King and country that
    they were subjects of would use those laws exclusively to draft their new
    Constitution. They also did not use the word subject but used the word citizen
    to describe this nation’s people.
    Was Vattel a favorite book of some of the
    founders, and may have been influential in the development of our Constitution?
    Judging by this http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1 from Benjamin Franklin to
    Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December, 1775 it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you
    have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the
    circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law
    of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our
    own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts
    Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our
    Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and
    have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
    From http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5YcUprzLYWGkAXer4GIBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vattel%27s%20law%20of%20nations&f=false, p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the time of the American
    Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most
    authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and
    Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time.
    Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his
    predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law of Nature upon
    International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American Journal of
    International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.Also during this period who was a member of the Congress Franklin spoke
    of? It was John Jay a Delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-76 from New
    York, Member of the New York Constitutional Convention, First Chief Justice of
    New York, 1777; Delegate and elected President of Continental Congress, 1778.” If they received a copy of it in 1775
    then by the time the Constitution was adopted it had been in their hands for
    over a decade.
    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html
    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
    http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1

    http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5YcUprzLYWGkAXer4GIBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw%23v=onepage&q=vattel%27s%20law%20of%20nations&f=false

    1. PeterLettkeman says:

      The
      framers sought to prevent the influence of foreign governments or monarchies and
      wrote in to the Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html the Natural Born Citizen clause ” 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.”

      This clause and its wording were a direct
      result of a conversation in letters, specifically this http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1 between http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay.htm and George Washington.
      For those that do not know of John Jay and
      his importance in the drafting of the Constitution I present the
      following.John Jay, Alexander Hamilton
      and James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly known
      as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of New York why
      they should support the ratification of the Constitution. John Adams later said
      in reference to who was the most influential proponent of constitutional reform
      that Jay was http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/jay_constitution.html
      John Jay was an avid reader of Emmerich de
      Vattel’s The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758).In this book the definition of what a
      “natural born Citizen” is can be found http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RZUcUtupHcr4kAXL6oGAAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20citizen&f=false p. 101 in section 212. Section
      212 provides us with insight as to Jays wording of his letter back to
      Washington “The natives, or natural-born
      citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” After
      seeing the draft language by Alexander Hamilton of the requirements to be
      President, John Jay wrote this in his letter to George Washington dated 25 July
      1787 here. “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 Command in Chief
      of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural
      born Citizen.” Now that we know what is said and where it comes from lets
      address legal opinions of the Supreme Court.
      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
      http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1
      http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay.htm
      http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/jay_constitution.html
      http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RZUcUtupHcr4kAXL6oGAAg&redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20citizen&f=false

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        The
        Supreme Court of which John Jay was the first Chief Justice has never ruled on
        the eligibility of who could be President based off of the Natural Born Citizen
        clause, this is true, but they have made reference to who are natural born
        citizens in several cases.

        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html Vattel
        is cited six times in this case to include this statement; “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.”
        “The
        inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to
        settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they
        are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are
        obliged to defend it because it grants them protection,
        though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only
        the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants
        are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind
        of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society,
        without participating in all its advantages.”
        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html Vattel is cited four times in this case to include
        thisstatement; “By this same writer it is also said: “The citizens are the members
        of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to
        its authority; they equally participate
        in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the
        country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself
        otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow
        the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html Vattel
        is not directly cited but this statement defines who are Natural Born Citizens
        because there were never doubts about who those people are. “Additions might always be made to the
        citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by
        naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides
        [http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html#F6]
        that “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United
        States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the
        office of President, [http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html#F7]”
        and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of
        naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by
        naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be
        natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
        common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
        familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents
        who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These
        were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
        foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born
        within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as
        to the first.”
        So far I have provided evidence of where the
        clause came from, and the definition via SCOTUS opinions of what makes a
        Natural Born Citizen. What still needs to be discussed is at what point our
        legislative branch, and our education system lost its way on what the
        definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Why are they so adamant that any citizen
        can be President?
        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html
        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html
        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html
        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html#F6
        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html#F7

        1. PeterLettkeman says:

          Congress has never amended Art II of the
          Constitution. It has with the http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html clarified that those born on U.S. soil regardless of
          parents’ citizenship were citizens. This Amendment was part of the post-Civil
          War Amendments to abolish slavery and define the rights of former slaves. The
          primary framer of this Amendment Rep. John Bingham, on more than one occasion,
          on the floor of the House of Representatives stated what the definition of what
          a Natural Born Citizen was. On page http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=wk0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2791&dq=%22State+Department%22+%2B%22natural-born+citizen%22&hl=en&ei=EQpxTeupEI32gAePqsRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22State%20Department%22%20%20%22natural-born%20citizen%22&f=false of “The Congressional Globe, Volume 66” part 4 you
          will find these words: “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to
          resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard
          is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow
          of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the
          United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day,
          he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
          The date of this was 25 April 1872, a little more than eighty-five years after
          the adoption of the Constitution.

          Those that state that
          any citizen or citizen at birth can be President then why has congress pushed
          the proposals below?
          The congressional record shows that Congress
          started its assault on this clause in 1975 when Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham (D)
          introduced http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d094:H.J.Res33: which states “Provides that a citizen of the United States
          otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible
          because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.” This would have
          allowed any citizen regardless of how they became a citizen to be President. He
          attempted again in 1977.
          It was not until 2003, just prior to the
          meteoric rise of President Barack Obama, that Congress attempted eight times in
          twenty-two months to modify or eliminate the Natural Born Citizen clause. Here
          are the attempts.
          1.11 June 2003 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res59: Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a
          person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and
          who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible
          to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
          2.3 September 2003 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res67: John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes
          a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years
          eligible to hold the office of President.”
          3.15 September 2004 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res104: Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment –
          “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who
          have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible
          to hold such Office.” 
          4.4 January 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.RES.2: John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes
          a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years
          eligible to hold the Office of President.”
          5.1 February 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res15: Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment – Makes
          eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held
          U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold
          such Office.”
          http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
          http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=wk0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2791&dq=%22State+Department%22+%2B%22natural-born+citizen%22&hl=en&ei=EQpxTeupEI32gAePqsRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22State%20Department%22%20%20%22natural-born%20citizen%22&f=false
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d094:H.J.Res33:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res59:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res67:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res104:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.RES.2:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res15:

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          1.14 April 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res42: Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a
          person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and
          who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible
          to hold the office of President or Vice President.”

          2.28 February 2008 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S2678: Claire McCaskill MO as part of a military funding
          bill “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares
          that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the
          Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United
          States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the
          active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.”
          In defense of the Natural Born Citizenship
          Clause but getting the definition incorrect:
          3.25 February 2004 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S2128: Don Nickles OK “Natural Born Citizen Act –
          Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish
          eligibility for the Office of President”
          All
          of these attempts ended with http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511: which was a non-binding resolution stating the John
          Sidney McCain, III is a “natural born citizen” under Art II, Section 1 of the
          Constitution of the United States.“Whereas
          John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” and “Whereas
          the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the
          Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the
          United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears
          in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United
          States;”
          Why,
          if the definition alludes that any citizen can be president, amend the clause?
          Perhaps that definition is incorrect itself.
          Now
          let’s look at the education system.
          Elementary
          Catechism on the Constitution of the United States: For the Use by
          Schools by Arthur Joseph Stansbury: 1828
          http://archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich#page/16/mode/2up in reference to Senators and Representatives:
          Q.
          Can he be chosen if he has not been born in the United States?
          A.
          Yes, if he has become a citizen by being Naturalized, and has been a citizen
          for nine years.
          http://archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich#page/48/mode/2up in reference to the President:
          Q. May any person be chosen
          President of the United States?
          A.Not every person; none may
          be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when
          the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than
          thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for
          fourteen years.
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res42:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S2678:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S2128:
          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511:
          http://archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich#page/16/mode/2up
          http://archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich#page/48/mode/2up

        3. PeterLettkeman says:

          The
          unconstitutionality of slavery By Lysander Spooner: 1845
          http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlavery8.htm#P1CHAPVIII In reference to qualifications to be President:
          “Every
          Person then born in the country, and that attained the age of thirty-five
          years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States is eligible
          to the office of president. And if eligible to that office, the constitution
          certainly does not recognize him as a slave.”
          New
          Englander and Yale Review, Volume 3 edited by Edward Royall
          Tyler, William Lathrop Kingsley, George Park Fisher, Timothy Dwight: 1845
          http://bks4.books.google.to/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:ISBN0664244947&lr=&vq=%22of+the+United+States+which+declares+that+%27+the+citizens+of+each+state+shall%22&source=gbs_quotes#v=onepage&q=%22of%20the%20United%20States%20which%20declares%20that%20%27%20the%20citizens%20of%20each%20state%20shall%22&f=false In reference to the qualifications to be President: “In the latter, the
          term “natural born citizen” is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance
          by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word “citizen” is used
          without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states,
          unless naturalized under our laws.”
          THE
          CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT-BOOK: A PRACTICAL AND FAMILIAR EXPOSITION OF THE FEDERAL
          GOVERNMENT: Furman Sheppard 1855
          http://books.google.to/books?id=lYk8uYYnyC8C&pg=PA170&dq=books+with+descriptions+of+natural+born+Citizen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FzUQUpz9KZDbkgWWp4DIDw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=books%20with%20descriptions%20of%20natural%20born%20Citizen&f=false Section
          402 “It is very proper that aliens or foreigners should be excluded from the
          office of President because it is the highest and most responsible office under
          the Constitution. At the time, however, of the adoption of the Constitution,
          many of the citizens in the States were natives of Europe, and had emigrated to
          this country and been naturalized in various States… It seemed unjust and
          ungrateful to exclude such persons form the office of President, and it was,
          therefore in order tho meet their case, provided that those who had been
          citizens of the United States at the time adoption of the Constitution should
          be eligible to the office of President, although they were not natural born
          citizens.”
          ALBANY
          LAW JOURNAL, A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS Volume 24: Irving
          Browne July 1881-January 1882
          http://books.google.to/books?id=Y3szAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=books+with+descriptions+of+natural+born+Citizen+clause+in+the+U.S.+Constitution&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DkEQUpXPHsvTkgW8pYHoBQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBzg8#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20Citizen&f=false Presidential
          Inability: “This provision excludes from the presidential office all persons of
          foreign birth, all persons under thirty-five years of age, and all persons who
          have not resided fourteen years within the United States.”

          http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlavery8.htm#P1CHAPVIII
          http://bks4.books.google.to/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:ISBN0664244947&lr=&vq=%22of+the+United+States+which+declares+that+%27+the+citizens+of+each+state+shall%22&source=gbs_quotes#v=onepage&q=%22of%20the%20United%20States%20which%20declares%20that%20%27%20the%20citizens%20of%20each%20state%20shall%22&f=false
          http://books.google.to/books?id=lYk8uYYnyC8C&pg=PA170&dq=books+with+descriptions+of+natural+born+Citizen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FzUQUpz9KZDbkgWWp4DIDw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=books%20with%20descriptions%20of%20natural%20born%20Citizen&f=false
          http://books.google.to/books?id=Y3szAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=books+with+descriptions+of+natural+born+Citizen+clause+in+the+U.S.+Constitution&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DkEQUpXPHsvTkgW8pYHoBQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBzg8#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20Citizen&f=false

        4. RickBulow says:

          PeterLettkemanhi. Remember me? I am the one who destroyed your last tripe with the TRUTH about Natural born citizenship. You have no case but you keep coming back for more. In my opinion you are a glutton for punishment who cannot handle the truth that GregoryConterioPatrickJCollianoWesternFreePressand I had put here.

        5. PeterLettkeman says:

          You have done no such thing. As before I have provided for you the links to the actual text of the conversations by the founding fathers and the links to all of my research only for you to call me names. You guys argue that the founding fathers were ignorant of French yet with a little more research I have found that six years prior to the Constitution that indignes was translated to natural born citizens. I know I may not be able to help you see the light but, maybe I can bring the truth to others that may stumble across this misinterpretation you present as the truth. 
          PeterLettkemanGregoryConterioPatrickJCollianoWesternFreePress

        6. PeterLettkeman says:

          I have continued to search, but I cannot find
          any examples from 1900-90 that are free to access. After that era all of the
          versions I find are of the mindset that natural born Citizen is synonymous with
          the term Citizen at birth. Without evidence from that one-hundred year period I
          can’t definitively identify at which point the education of the public went
          awry. I can state from my own experience having graduated in the mid 80’s that
          I was never taught nor under the impression that they were interchangeable.
          As previously stated there
          are three classes of Citizen in the United States:
          Presidents 1-10 were grandfathered by the
          Constitution
          1.Natural Born:Citizens born of citizen parents on U.S. soil.
          Presidents 11-20 and 22-43 fall in to this category
          2.Citizens at Birth as defined
          by INA section 301: Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Barack
          Obama all fall in to this category
          3.Naturalized Citizens: as
          defined by USIC code.
          There have
          been many candidates for President that have had questionable status but only
          two have been President thus to this point that their “natural born
          citizenship” has been in question. The first was the 21st President Chester
          A. Arthur; the second was the 44th President Barack H. Obama.
          With
          President Arthur, the question could never be answered because his personal
          records were destroyed in a fire after he left office.
          President
          Obama’s status conversation has been suppressed, and most discussions have been
          focused on his birthplace. That could be because his literary biography that
          was published from 1991 to 2007, and other statements in newspaper articles stated
          he was born in Kenya. His birthplace, while part of the issue, is not the
          easiest reason to disqualify him. The fact that his father was not a U.S.
          citizen neither at the time of his birth nor ever for that matter is the
          disqualifying factor and makes him a citizen at birth, but not a Natural Born
          Citizen.
          My final presentations
          are these scenarios as to what the framers were talking about, and how we
          could/could have been usurped by a foreign monarchy today.

          An
          example of this would be if Prince Harry went to Italy on vacation and
          impregnated an American female. She has a baby and after the birth she
          announces to the world that she had Prince Harry’s child. Now we have a child
          that is an heir to the throne of England and by the standards put forth by
          those that disagree with me a person eligible to be our President.
          Also how are the citizenship statuses of any of the
          individuals: Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio any better
          than the potential citizenship of heirs to the throne of Jordan listed below?
          Prince
          Hamzah (born 29 March 1980), Crown Prince from 1999 to 2004,
          Prince
          Hashim (born 10 June 1981), who has three daughters
          Princess
          Iman (born 24 April 1983)
          Princess
          Raiyah (born 9 February 1986)
          Ted and
          the gang are citizens at birth, but they are not a Natural Born Citizen. If
          they are eligible then the children of Queen Noor and King Hussein of Jordan
          would have been eligible in two more years if she had not renounced her
          American citizenship at the time of her marriage. They would have been born to
          a U.S. Citizen parent and a foreign national in a foreign country.
          Although I’m in total agreement that
          President Obama is not nor has ever been eligible to be President, this paper
          is in reference to the calls for Senator Ted Cruz to be President. I have
          presented all the evidence above as to why and how he, Bobby Jindal, Nikki
          Haley, nor Marco Rubio are eligible candidates for the office of the President
          of the United States.

        7. RickBulow says:

          PeterLettkeman YES I HAVE. I had RESEARCHED this and have priven you to be WRONG. GregoryConterioPatrickJCollianoWesternFreePresshad ALSO done the same thing.  WE knopw the truth and COMMON SENSE. YOU are nothing but a Saul Alinsky liberal who has been defeated Andrew Breitbart style

        8. PeterLettkeman says:

          You are the one calling me names, and you are far from being an Andrew Breitbart. Why so serious and upset over this? I have presented a well documented and footnoted discussion that disagrees with your perception of what the intent of the founding fathers was on the subject. As I stated before. If Natural Born Citizen and my connection to John Jay and Vattel are not correct show me where NBC was used by anyone else and how it ended up in the Constitution. I can and have shown the connection to back my argument. It is like playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon but somehow you don’t understand the connection that is right in front of you and denial may seem like a protective shelter but is a false sense of comfort my friend. 
          RickBulowPeterLettkemanGregoryConterioPatrickJCollianoWesternFreePress

        9. PeterLettkeman says:

          When I stated that “where had it been used before” is the context of meaning something different than children born in the country to parents of which the parents are citizens.  RickBulowGregoryConterioPatrickJCollianoWesternFreePress

    2. RickBulow says:

      PeterLettkemanThat is a lie. The Constitution only allows for TWO types of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized. NO OTHER. NO subet of either. Just. Stop. Lying.

      Sincerely,

      Rick Bulow

      Rejecting false premises about Natural Born Citizenship since 2012

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        RickBulowPeterLettkemanTrue the constitution allows for only two but with the 14th amendment and the INA 301 an additional category, citizens at birth has been created. They are neither Natural born nor naturalized citizens, but require the INA or 14th Amendment to make them citizens.

        1. RickBulow says:

          PeterLettkeman Why do you keep lying when we had shown you the truth?

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          RickBulow I’m the one with links to .edu, .gov, I don’t see a whole lot of that in your arguments.
          Two questions
          1. Are Anchor babies eligible to be President?
          2. Where was the term natural born citizen used by anyone other that John Jay prior to the Constitution or the mention from the continental congress record? 
          Your argument makes anchor babies legal to be President because they fall under that same statute of Citizens at Birth that Ted Cruz and the rest of those with foreign parents do.
          No where else will you find documentation of anyone else other than John Jay using that term other than what I have posted here.

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanRickBulow 
          1, Are anchor babies eligible to be President?
          Answer: If they also meet the criteria of residing in the U.S. for at least fourteen years and attain the age of 35 years, yes.
          2. “Natural born” comes to us from English common law, and its first documented use was in 1608, in Calvin’s Case or the Case of the Postnati. No translation of Vattel ever used the term “natural born” until 1797, ten years after the Constitution was framed (and thirty years after the death of Vattel).

        4. PeterLettkeman says:

          Wow you said yes to Anchor babies which means children born to Chinese nationals are eligible to be President. That seems to fly in the face of the foreign influence issue at the heart of this discussion.
          Second Point. I have already shown you that the words used by Vattel “Naturals”  was translated to natural born  6 years prior the drafting of the Constitution in the Continental Congress record found here http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DATE+17810727%29,PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanRickBulow

  42. EndTheMentalMasturbation says:

    The thing is… whether the Founding Fathers intended it to be that way or not, the law is what the law is, and until a ruling is obtained from the Supreme Court that overturns that, it will remain that way. All legal theorizing and assumptions of what the original drafters of the Constitution meant means fuckall at this point.

    1. PeterLettkeman says:

      EndTheMentalMasturbationNo defining ruling either way has ever been made on this subject. It is not the law, currently it is what the constitution says and the fact that only two people in the history of the United States have gotten away with deviating from what I see as the intent. I refer to my paper where I ask this question. If NBC is so well known and understood why when Obama was coming on the scene was there such a scramble by congress to try and define it?  Specifically in to a manner that would benefit the up and comer?

      1. EndTheMentalMasturbation says:

        Hmmmm…. no. You’re wrong. The law, as written in the U.S. Code is pretty damn clear. 

        I don’t recall any “scramble.”

        1. PeterLettkeman says:

          EndTheMentalMasturbationEight times in 22 months leading up to Obama. That is pretty much a scramble. Secondly U.S. code does not define NBC. Please share with the world where you found this. It defines Naturalized Citizens and Citizens at birth by not Natural Born Citizens. CIB can be found under INA 301 http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html and Citizenship Through Naturalization or more commonly known as “immigrants” can be found here
          http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

        2. RickBulow says:

          PeterLettkeman Even  EndTheMentalMasturbationknows that Natural Born Citizen and Citizen at birth are the same thing. READ THE LAW and stop lying to people

        3. For_My_Liberty says:

          RickBulowPeterLettkemanEndTheMentalMasturbationActually Rick, YOU should stop lying to people…ONE MORE TIME–JUST FOR YOU! OPINION of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA …OVER CITIZENSHIP of a woman and the EXPLANATION of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN …*l* I am really sorry that you are so hard headed or IGNORANT that you will NOT accept the opinion of our HIGHEST courts..*l*

          Additions might always be made to the citizenship of
          the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by
          naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it
          provideshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n6 that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a
          citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the
          Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n7 and that Congress shall have power “to establish a
          uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they
          may be created by naturalization.

          The Constitution does not, in words, say who
          shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to
          ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the
          framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all
          children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became
          themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or
          natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some
          authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the
          jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but
          never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary
          to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to
          consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
          jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are
          certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all
          persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the
          first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the
          whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

        4. For_My_Liberty says:

          RickBulowPeterLettkemanEndTheMentalMasturbation Now Rick, get this last part….READ REAL CLOSE…Talks about FATHERS of Children…*l* YOU know, Like How Cruz’s Father is CUBAN..
          Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as
          early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,”
          might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the
          children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United
          States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such
          naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States,
          and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be
          born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should
          be considered as natural-born citizens.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been
          retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however,
          the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore
          born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of
          the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their
          birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens
          also.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n9

        5. For_My_Liberty says:

          RickBulowPeterLettkemanEndTheMentalMasturbationAND according to BRITISH Sovereignty…The CHILD followed the citizenship of the FATHER. *l* got that Rick??  IT was PRECEDENCE!

  43. p5151 says:

    let me ask this… as a Canadian, does Ted Cruz have any foreign influence?

    1. RickBulow says:

      p5151He is NOT a Canadian. He is a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

      Howe many times do we have to tell you that before it sinks in?

      1. For_My_Liberty says:

        RickBulowp5151*lmao* oh yes he is….Canadian that is….and not a Natural born Citizen ….Get a grip Rick….and do some more research with an OPEN MIND..*lol*

        1. RickBulow says:

          @For_My_Liberty You andp5151have NO COMMON SENSE. Ted Cruz is NOT a Canadian. He an AMERICAN and a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN based on 8 USC 1401. READ the LAW and STOP LYING to the people!

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          RickBulowp5151If he is not a Canadian why is he trying to renounce his Canadian citizenship?

        3. For_My_Liberty says:

          RickBulowp5151*rotflmao* Waaaaaaaaaaaa Rick, Why don’t you throw a tantrum? WE are stating FACTS and TRUTH. I am really sorry that does not fit in with your delusional warped version of it. YOU need to read 1401..*l*  and get someone to draw you PICTURES so that you understand it!

      2. p5151 says:

        RickBulow p5151 OK WesternFreePress, aren’t you going to respond to this. You may want to take Rick aside and explain to him that Ted Cruz is definitely a Canadian citizen and he’s in the process of trying to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Rick, you are very confused about this issue.

      3. PeterLettkeman says:

        RickBulowp5151He is an INA 301 subsection (g) citizen at birth. How can he be “Natural” if he requires an act of man to be declared a citizen?

        1. RickBulow says:

          PeterLettkeman He is an 8 USC 1401 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
          Citizen at birth = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

        2. PeterLettkeman says:

          RickBulowPeterLettkemanThen so your saying that any citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. I see so that would include a Chinese tourist baby that was born 34 years ago and will be eligible in 2016 to run for President, becasue they are also a citizen at birth.
           
          The founding fathers were citizens at birth by your standards so why would they put in the requirement to be a natural born Citizen?

        3. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman RickBulow Peter, I’m increasingly inclined to agree with Rick & Patrick, you are being deliberately dishonest.
          You are ignoring the “..subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” portion of 8 USC 1401, which appears in the very first line of the statute, (and is thus impossible to miss) and which quite clearly would disqualify your Chinese tourist offspring.
          The Founding Fathers were clearly NOT NBCs, because the Constitution was not in effect at the time of their birth, and they were all British subjects.  That is specifically why Clause 5 of Article 2 of the constitution contains the qualification “..or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”  Employing such obviously absurd examples projects insincerity and un-seriousness.

        4. p5151 says:

          GregoryConterio PeterLettkeman RickBulow so Gregory since you agree with Rick then I assume you also claim that Ted Cruz is NOT a Canadian citizen…LOL

        5. GregoryConterio says:

          p5151 GregoryConterio PeterLettkeman RickBulow  Personally, I try to avoid making foolish assumptions.  Canada, like most other western countries, also has a policy recognizing those born on its soil as NBCs.  I have not spent any time researching Canada’s laws on this matter, so I have no idea if Cruz is considered a Canadian citizen or not.  Were the circumstances reversed, and Cruz was born in the U.S. to Canadian parents here only a short time on a work visa, he would not have to worry about it, because he would not qualify as a U.S. citizen due to the residency requirement contained in 8 USC 1401.  Canada may have some similar qualification, I do not know, and have never commented upon it.  However, dual citizenship is not a legal impediment to serving as President, and Cruz has already renounced any Canadian citizenship he may hold, which does not change the fact that he is clearly a NBC under 8 USC 1401.

        6. p5151 says:

          GregoryConterio p5151 PeterLettkeman RickBulow I appreciate your response. However, Ted Cruz is currently attempting to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Whether he’s considered a natural born Candadian citizen or just classified as a mere citizen isn’t really the issue. The issue is that as a Canadian citizen he has an allegiance to Canada and he was born under the jurisdiction of Canada. The founding fathers changed the requirement for POTUS to natural born citizen for one main reason as described by John Jay….so that the commander in chief would not have ANY foreign influence. Ted Cruz was born with a foreign influence…he’s a Canadian. He is also an American, but he owes allegiance to both countries. This is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Would you think the same of Ted Cruz’s eligibility if he were born in Iran? Canada and Iran are both foreign countries. In the eyes of the law there is no difference. Just think about the consequences of what you are promoting. I write this with sincerety and honesty.

        7. PeterLettkeman says:

          Asked that to you because you Patrick said that Anchor babies could be President. Just trying to clarify if you were of the same inclination. Subsection (a) is an anchor or tourist baby they along with all the other subsections of which Ted Cruz is a subsection (g) require a law to make them citizens and are citizens at birth by that law. The founding fathers and anyone under 8 USC 1401 are one in the same. If they intended for the later to be eligible to be the President then why identify the specific category of natural born Citizen? The reason is they didn’t want anyone that would have foreign allegiance to be President. Anyone born with a parent who is a citizen of a foreign country are born with divided allegiance.
          Let me put this out there. If you are from a standard home of parents who are citizens of the U.S. and your grandparents are from say Italy. Your father and mother have more influence on you than your grandparents specifically on how you see politics, religion, allegiance to the old country and other subjects if they differ from your grandparents. Now, your sons or daughters are going to be more like you than like their grandparents and even less like their great grandparents. 
          With every passing generation the foreign influence on the following generation is lessened. This is the fundemental reason behind the clause.

          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanRickBulow

        8. PeterLettkeman says:

          Here is the post from your fellow compadre Patrick.
          PatrickJColliano said
          PeterLettkemanRickBulow
          1, Are anchor babies eligible to be President?
          Answer: If they also meet the criteria of residing in the U.S. for at least fourteen years and attain the age of 35 years, yes.
          2. “Natural born” comes to us from English common law, and its first
          documented use was in 1608, in Calvin’s Case or the Case of the
          Postnati. No translation of Vattel ever used the term “natural born”
          until 1797, ten years after the Constitution was framed (and thirty
          years after the death of Vattel).
          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanRickBulow

        9. GregoryConterio says:

          p5151 GregoryConterio PeterLettkeman RickBulow P5151 – one does not need a “process” to renounce one’s citizenship.  There is no form to fill out or office to visit, you simply need to announce it publicly in word or writing, which Cruz has done.  He is not “attempting” to renounce any Canadian citizenship he may hold, he has done it.
          Your assertion that the mere fact of being born on Canada’s soil imparts an “allegiance” to that country is absurd.  As your guy Vattel himself wrote (and I linked-to in another post in this thread) there is a big difference to being born “of a country” and having a “place of your birth.”  Cruz spent an extremely short period of his earliest years living in Canada.  He grew-up in America, went to school in America, has worked exclusively in America, and clearly by every word and deed demonstrates an allegiance exclusively to America.  Even by the standards of your hero Vattel, Canada would be considered merely the “place of his birth.”  The idea that his birth and very early minority happened to take place in Canada, and that this has somehow magically created an “allegiance” to that country is absurd on its face, and made more so when one views his life.

        10. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio RickBulow 
          I am really tired of these repetitive, circular arguments, this will be the last time I repeat myself on this.
          There are no “categories” of NBC.  You either meet the qualifications set forth in 8 USC 1401, or you do not.  If you do, you are a NBC, and yes, that includes the right to serve as President.
          You may disagree with whether this law is sufficient and desirable, but wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

        11. PeterLettkeman says:

          Judging by the “Am I Canadian
          Citizen” tool He is a Canadian Citizen.
          http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_04.asp
          Questions
          1. Has he ever renounced his citizenship. Answer is no (and it requires
          paperwork to do).
          2. Has your citizenship be revoked
          for fraud. NO
          3. Where were you born. CANADA
          4. When was he born. between 1947
          and 1961
          5. Where one or both of your parents
          diplomats. NO
          Answer:
          Based on your answers, you are likely a Canadian
          citizen.

          http://www.livefyre.com/profile/5989166/ http://www.livefyre.com/profile/21781628/ http://www.livefyre.com/profile/19580024/ http://www.livefyre.com/profile/14381394/

        12. PeterLettkeman says:

          i THINK YOU ARE COMING AROUND! You are correct there are no categories of NBC. Born of citizen parents in the country of which they are citizens are the only category of NBC.
          Now there are at least 7 ways that allow you to be a citizen at birth.  GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanRickBulow

        13. PeterLettkeman says:

          Still not going to answer why your boy Patrick said that an anchor baby would be eligible to be President?  p5151PeterLettkemanRickBulow

        14. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman p5151 RickBulow 
          This has already been answered MANY times.  Yes, a baby born to alien parents on U.S. soil is a NBC under 8 USC 1401.  And ANYONE whose birth meets the criteria listed with 8 USC 1401 is a NBC, and eligible to serve as president.  End of discussion.

        15. PeterLettkeman says:

          I couldn’t help but answer back to this. You say that one does not need a
          “process” to renounce one’s citizenship. Well first from this, Ted is
          most likely still a citizen of Canada.
          Judging by the “Am I Canadian Citizen” tool Ted is a Canadian Citizen. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_04.asp
          Questions
          1. Has he ever renounced his citizenship. Answer is no (and it requires paperwork to do).
          2. Has your citizenship be revoked for fraud. NO
          3. Where were you born. CANADA
          4. When was he born. between 1947 and 1977
          5. Where one or both of your parents diplomats. NO
          Answer:
          Based on your answers, you are likely a Canadian citizen.
          And here is where he will have to go to begin the “process” of renouncing his Canadian citizenship.
          http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/renounce.asp
          So
          do I get an “I was wrong” about this not? Will you lay claim to your
          mistake? If you are wrong about this how can we trust that the rest of
          your research was not incorrect?PatrickJColliano GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanp5151RickBulow

        16. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano GregoryConterio p5151 RickBulow So Peter, if your standard for trusting someone’s research is whether or not they have ever been mistaken or wrong on some point, what does that say about you, and the laundry-list of claims you have not only been wrong about, but deliberately dishonest in asserting?
          I already said I had done zero-research on Canadian law, so if I’m wrong on whether they have a form to fill-out, then I’m wrong.  I imagine there is a form somewhere for renouncing American citizenship too, but legally-speaking, all that is required is a public renunciation.  There are forms to fill-out to receive a death certificate, does that mean until they are filed, one is not actually dead?  The same for birth certificates, or are you contending that you are not actually alive until the proper paperwork is filed?  Simply filing a form for such things is a convenience for bureaucrats, not necessarily a legal requirement, and despite having found a form to fill-out, you have NOT demonstrated that filing the form is a REQUIREMENT to obtain legal recognition of renunciation.  It has not been absolutely established that Cruz actually IS a Canadian citizen, yet he has already publicly announced his renunciation of any such citizenship, if he in fact holds it.  And as I have pointed-out and you have ignored, even if he had not done so, dual-citizenship is not a legal barrier to serving as President.
          In typical fashion, you once more are deflecting in order to avoid having to acknowledge your own errors.

        17. For_My_Liberty says:

          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianop5151RickBulowThen STOP acting like you are a FREAKING AUTHORITY on EVERYTHING IDIOT!!! Peter was just pointing out the FACT that you ARE wrong on THAT and CAN be wrong about OTHER THINGS!

        18. RickBulow says:

          @For_My_Liberty For your information, GregoryConterio is provingPeterLettkeman WRONF on this, just the same as PatrickJColliano and I are proving you and p5151 on this topic. We have DONE THE RESEARCH and have DEBUNKED and DENIED every link you and other birther liars had posited.here.

        19. PeterLettkeman says:

          The fact is you made an assertion that you didn’t have to do anything to renounce your citizenship. Again you say that all he has to do is announce it which legally still does nothing but claim intent. You compare it to death but what you should have done is compare it to divorce. I can say all day long that I am divorced but until I hit the court house and fill out the papers I am still married.
          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianop5151RickBulow

        20. PeterLettkeman says:

          He has a Canadian BC I have shown you the Canadian website citizenship tool
          and I filled it out as if I was Ted Cruz.

          If dual citizenship is not a barrier to being President how do we as John Jay
          stated ‘
          “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 Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to
          nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
          Just because he didn’t grow up there does not mean he is not a Canadian Citizen
          and there for a foreigner.
          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianop5151RickBulow

        21. PeterLettkeman says:

          I am not deflecting I’m answering and commenting on your posts. I began
          commenting on here because your original article is as I and many other see it
          incorrect in your readings and understandings of the intent of the founding
          fathers. You refuse to go back and try and understand where it came from, but rely
          on commentary from people that were neither there nor wrote the original
          document.

          PeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianop5151RickBulow

        22. PeterLettkeman says:

          No legal recognition yet this is what it states on the website. If it is not a
          legal matter then why the need for a citizenship judge?

          “You may have to be interviewed by a citizenship judge. If so, we
          will notify you by mail of the time and place of your interview. If you live
          outside Canada, the Canadian embassy, high commission or consulate responsible
          for your area will contact you to let you know how the interview will be
          conducted.
          If your application is approved, we will send you a certificate of
          renunciation.”
           GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianop5151RickBulow

        23. PeterLettkeman says:

          He did not prove me wrong and he made a comment again in the response that he knew nothing about. Again I have to go to the webpage and pull the information and show him that he was wrong.
            I have noticed that now my comments can’t be very long for some reason. I can only assume that WesternFreePresshas now decided that my first amendment is no longer valid to continue the correction of this poorly done article since I am debunking as you say his myths.
            Please for the sake of any children,  please at least use the spell check that is provide.
          GregoryConterioPeterLettkemanPatrickJCollianop5151

        24. GregoryConterio says:

          PeterLettkeman PatrickJColliano p5151 RickBulow Peter, I have provided more reference to original writings and documentation than YOU have by a wide margin!  I have provided documentation that Vattel was NOT a significant influence upon the founders, that there is no judicial precedent which cites Vattel as the source of the meaning of NBC, I have provided documentation that English Common Law is the actual source, and that there is judicial precedent supporting this, and provided the U.S. Code law that codifies the legal meaning of this term.  You on the other hand ignore or deny without ANY support all of the evidence I have provided. 
          You are simply a dishonest man, who ignores facts that are presented which are inconsistent with the position you want to believe in.
          You can believe whatever you want, but facts are facts, and you have none which support your beliefs.  You are also not worth arguing with any further.

  44. For_My_Liberty says:

    YOU are COMPLETE FULL OF IT!! *rotfl* You gloss OVER the FACT that the opinion of the SCOTUS in Minor vs Happersett DOES INDEED DEFINE Natural Born Citizen. YES, It WAS a case about voting rights for a Woman in MO. but you FAIL to admit that she was FIGHTING FOR HER RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN TO VOTE–and THAT is why Natural Born Citizen WAS talked about AND defined in not only THIS case, but OTHER cases–because bottom line, they were CITIZENSHIP cases.

    The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains;http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZS-88_US_166n1

    “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.”

  45. For_My_Liberty says:

    Now PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION to the LAST PARAGRAPH of the Count
    OPINION. THUS as FAR back as 1875 Natural BORN CITIZEN HAS and IS
    DEFINED! AND, Until OVOMIT, Only ONE POTUS did NOT meet the requirements
    of the Constitution and HE LIED (Like Ovomit) and that was Chester
    Arthur. His LIE was not found out until LONG after he was dead. 
    TWIST
    crap ANY way you WANT, but This WAS an OPINION WRITTEN BY SCOTUS and
    although you want to BLOW IT OFF as a “Women’s suffrage” case, IT did
    INDEED define NBC!

  46. For_My_Liberty says:

    Opinion

    WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court

    The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

    The question is presented in this case,
    whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is
    a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter
    in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and
    laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We
    might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is
    fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided
    in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here.
    The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of
    having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety
    there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision,
    we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once
    to its determination.

    It is contended that the provisions of the
    constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right
    of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the
    Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is,
    that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
    the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the
    State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the
    privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by
    its laws or constitution abridge.

    There is no doubt that women may be
    citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment “all persons
    born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
    jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the
    United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But, in our
    opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
    Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in
    terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the
    several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such
    provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a
    political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their
    general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of
    the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is
    entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this
    connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the
    other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

    For convenience it has been found necessary
    to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title
    the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose
    the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the
    choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the
    government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it
    has been considered better suited to the description of one living under
    a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States
    upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in
    the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United
    States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea
    of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

    To determine, then, who were citizens of the
    United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to
    ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form
    the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

    Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,”http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n3 and then going further back, we find that these were
    the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political
    bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate
    and equal station among the powers of the earth,http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n4 and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual
    Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,”
    entered into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence,
    the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare,
    binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or
    attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
    sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n5

    Whoever, then, was one of the people of
    either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was
    adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created
    by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form
    the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to
    this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or
    not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the
    people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

  47. For_My_Liberty says:

    Additions might always be made to the
    citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and
    second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution
    itself, for it provideshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n6 that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a
    citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the
    Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n7 and that Congress shall have power “to establish a
    uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they
    may be created by naturalization.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who
    shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to
    ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the
    framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all
    children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became
    themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or
    natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some
    authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the
    jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but
    never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary
    to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to
    consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
    jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are
    certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all
    persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the
    first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the
    whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    Under the power to adopt a uniform system of
    naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien,
    being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United
    States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling
    within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the
    time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the
    United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States
    that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United
    States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been
    retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however,
    the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore
    born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of
    the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their
    birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens
    also.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n9

  48. p5151 says:

    as a Canadian citizen, AND a US citizen, Ted Cruz has an allegiance to BOTH Canada AND the US. How can anybody but RickBulow deny that? The reasoning for the natural born citizenship requirement was to eliminate ANY foreign allegiance in the office of President…..

    The primary framers of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, explained that the word “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means full and complete U.S. jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power:Mr. TRUMBULL. … The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.”
    … What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14)Mr. HOWARD: … I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16)
    Full and complete jurisdiction was an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship by birth. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to the U.S.-born children of emancipated slaves because they were subject to full and complete U.S. jurisdiction; they were not subject to the political or citizenship-related jurisdiction of any foreign government; their political ties to their ancestral countries of origin had, over many generations, disappeared entirely. In contrast, Native American Indians were subject to tribal jurisdiction, hence were not subject to full and complete U.S. jurisdiction. Consequently, the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship to Native American Indians, even though they were, in nearly all cases, born in the United States.
    On his http://people.mags.net/tonchen/smears.jpg, President Obama asserts that (a) his father was a British subject, and (b) in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” by the http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm. If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to full and complete U.S. jurisdiction? 
    This also  holds true for Ted Cruz….

  49. For_My_Liberty says:

    LOL HOW can  you say that everyone else misunderstands what the founders meant, yet YOU believe you are the sole one that KNOWS  their intent and and …naw…whatever…. I am done…it is like talking to a WALL with you. But before I go…Your article above when it is says…

    In a http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf, the two terms are explained as well as I have ever seen:

    “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.” Such term, however, would not include a person
    who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born
    an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization”
    to become a U.S. citizen.” 

    IS totally AGAINST what the framers wanted….remember WHY the wording was changed from Citizen to NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?? and REMEMBER the words of John Jay? so your research paper is full of BS! They did NOT want someone to be POTUS that might have allegiances or LOYALTIES to another country..*l*  for someone that is considers themselves so “Right” and “Educated” … you are missing several things..like a brain..

  50. PeterLettkeman says:

    Great little simple explanation, use with the authors permission.
    https://www.facebook.com/tatamojo
    OK,
    let me try this another way. I will let the Constitution speak for
    itself, and in so doing, all you who support ineligible candidates such
    as ovomit, ted cruz, jinal, rubio, etc., will HAVE to see the intent of
    the Founders unless you simply CHOOSE to continue IGNORING it!
    THIS is what Article 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution ACTUALLY says:
    “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.”
    Now, if NBC and “citizen” mean the SAME thing, a “citizen at birth,” as you keep insisting, then WHY was THIS phrase needed:
    “. . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, . . . (September 17, 1787)?”
    It was needed BECAUSE the two terms DO NOT mean the same thing! A NBC
    is one born IN the country of TWO American citizens. Since NONE of the
    Founders fit this definition (they were ALL born as British Subjects,
    even though many WERE born on what was to become US soil), nor did
    anyone ELSE born in what became the USA previous to the Declaration of
    Independence (July 4, 1776) since they were ALSO born as British
    subjects, that would mean only children born in the USA AFTER July 4,
    1776 would be NBC since they were BORN on American soil of parents who
    had BECOME American citizens with the adoption of the Declaration of
    Independence.
    (If what I wrote above is NOT correct, then
    there would have been NO reason to include the quoted part of Article
    Two immediately above the above paragraph! You CAN see that, can’t
    you?))
    Unfortunately, the OLDEST of these children in 1787
    would have only been ELEVEN YEARS OLD, so therefore, ineligible to run
    due to the ‘having attained the age of 35 requirement,’ so NO ONE would
    have been eligible! THAT is why the Founders had to “grandfather in”
    those who were NOT NBC! They decided to allow those who WERE citizens
    at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible, not only
    so they, themselves, would be eligible, but also so that SOMEONE,
    ANYONE, would be eligible!!!!
    I think it’s pretty obvious that
    ALL of the people who were thusly “grandfathered in” are now DEAD, so
    the ONLY relevant parts of Article Two, Clause 5, that remain in effect
    are:
    No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . 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.
    Now, without any NAME-CALLING, can ANY of you REFUTE my
    logic in ANY way? I’m NOT asking you to quote “talking heads” with an
    agenda, or even Wikepedia (which is what many of you HAVE been quoting
    whether you realize it or not), which, BTW, was RE-WRITTEN to justify
    ovomit’s “eligibility” as the child of ONE American citizen allegedly
    born in US territory.
    Rather, I’m asking you to USE THE BRAIN
    God gave you and really THINK about this, and then, if you CAN refute
    my logic, I am willing to hear you out – respectfully – and if you can
    convince me I’m wrong, I will freely ADMIT it, but if you can’t, then
    perhaps it is YOU who should think about admitting your error . . .

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      PeterLettkeman We have already dealt with this false assertion elsewhere in this thread, but I will repeat it again here.
      No, the clause you refer to is NOT there because “.. the two terms DO NOT mean the same thing! A NBC is one born IN the country of TWO American citizens.”  It was there to accommodate the founders themselves, who were all British subjects by birth, and obviously NOT NBCs.  The “logic” here is so flawed you could drive a truck through the gaping holes it leaves.

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        Then why not just call them Citizens like Hamilton proposed?  Why did Jay propose to the President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington that they be only natural born Citizen?  Why not just say citizens after the adoption of the Constitution? Why? Because that would allow any person that was a citizen, naturalized or born to be president opening it up to foreign influence.  GregoryConterioPeterLettkeman

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanGregoryConterioBecause the term “natural born citizen” excludes those citizens who are naturalized. Ted Cruz is eligible to be President because he’s a natural born citizen. Arnold Schwarzenegger, because he was born in Austria to parents who were both not citizens of the U.S., is NOT eligible to be President.

    2. RickBulow says:

      PeterLettkemanTry again. You are in error

      1. PeterLettkeman says:

        RickBulowPeterLettkemanSaying I’m wrong without providing proof or arguing the point does not make you correct.

  51. RickBulow says:

    Facts are a stubborn thing, and William Jacobson over at http://www.legalinsurrection.com has posited a WONDERFUL piece on it entitled http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
    I am going to quote just a few things from there and you can read the context for yourself.

    “There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz
    each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be
    understood through its plain text because they became citizens by
    birth.  Their “natural born Citizen[ship]” also is consistent with the
    concepts, respectively, of citizenship by birth place (Rubio, Jindal)
    and parentage (Cruz), from which the term “natural born Citizen” is
    believed to derive historically.
    The arguments that the term “natural born Citizen” excludes Rubio and
    Jindal (because their parents were not citizens) or Cruz (because he
    was born abroad to a citizen mother only) at most raise doubts.  Those
    doubts, however, never rise anywhere near the level of making the case
    that Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are excluded.  Most of the counter-arguments
    are historical conjecture, at best, and rely on speculation not
    connected to the text of the Constitution or any demonstrable
    actual intent or understanding of the Framers.
    In the circumstance of candidates who appear to qualify based on the
    text of the Constitution and the traditions upon which “natural born
    Citizen[ship]” is believed to derive, and as to whom there are at worst
    some doubts raised, I believe the proper http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/spiro.pdf
    is to leave the issue to the political process.  To exclude apparently
    eligible candidates based on speculation as to what the term “natural
    born Citizen” might have meant is no better, and I would argue much worse.
    Remember, these are merely eligibility requirements, not requirements
    that a person be elected.  It would be consistent with the
    Framers’ demonstrable concerns to consider loyalty to the United States
    as a political factor, even if not absolutely legally disqualifying.  If
    you don’t trust the loyalty of a candidate because of how he or she
    became a “natural born Citizen,” don’t vote for the person.

    1. PeterLettkeman says:

      RickBulowPosting someone else’s blog post, because they agree with you does not make it fact nor make your opinion the only explanation or make it more valid.

      1. RickBulow says:

        PeterLettkeman He said it a lot better and MORE FACTUAL than I could. You should LEARN something from him as he is RIGHT.
        If you say he is not, then prove him wrong. You cannot because EVERYTHING he posted is FACTUALLY CORRECT

      2. RickBulow says:

        PeterLettkeman Jealous because you have been debunked and proven a liar again, Lettkeman?

        1. PeterLettkeman says:

          Rick so do you believe anchor babies can be President?  PeterLettkeman

        2. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanYes. Anchor babies can be President.

        3. RickBulow says:

          PeterLettkemanI am saying ANYBODY who is born here REGARDLESS of parentage (as per Ankeny v. Indiana) IS eligible for the presidency because they are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

          You do not know what Ankeny says? http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903:

          “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States

          are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of 
          the citizenship of their parents.
          Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was]
          a natural – born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too
          were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural
          – born citizens.”
          Simple enough a 5 year old can understand it!

        4. p5151 says:

          RickBulow PeterLettkeman Rick, you have no clue about this case of Ankeny….it was so flawed I can’t begin to tell you about it….and frankly I could care less whether you understand it or not.

        5. PeterLettkeman says:

          Nice of you to quote the courts decision but you fail to identify the foot notes that state the following. They do not rule either way on NBC status.
          14
          We note the fact that the Court in
          Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Ar ticle
          II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s
          history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural
          born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is
          irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark
          was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United
          States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
          15
          We reiterate that we do not address
          the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United
          States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen
          parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented
          to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing
          in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the
          fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen
          status.
          Since I am not a lawyer I have taken this from Mario Apuzzo who was at the time that he posted this in discussing the Ankney decision.
          Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the
          Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment “in tandem,”
          suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the
          former. It also erred when it said that Minor “left open the issue of
          whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents
          is considered a natural born citizen.” The Court did no such thing.
          Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth
          Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II
          “natural born Citizen.” Minor told us that there is no doubt who a
          “natural born Citizen” is, telling us that it is a child born in the
          country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural
          law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this
          confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship
          definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the
          other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born
          in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Framers gave
          Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States”
          through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition
          making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over
          the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born
          Citizen.” It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
          649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a “citizen”
          and a “natural born Citizen.” It said that Minor relied upon the English
          common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for
          it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in
          the United States became “common-law” (the language that Minor used),
          which given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court
          provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of
          being a “natural-born citizen”) could not have been English common law
          but rather was American common law. In order to justify its decision,
          Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per
          Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S.
          citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American
          common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new
          republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which
          sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that
          it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12
          by saying that it “contemplates only scenarios where both parents are
          either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose
          mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United
          Kingdom.” But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen
          parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the
          “natural born” Citizen clause.
          RickBulowPeterLettkeman

        6. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanRickBulow Mario Apuzzo is free to believe what he wants. Or in his case, he’s free to pretend he believes whatever he wants.
          However, lacking a higher court’s overturning of the Ankeny v. Daniels decision, his opinion is completely irrelevant. Mario can believe that Minor v. Happersett stated the fairies dance the Mazurka on pinheads for all I care.
          Until a court higher than the three judge appellate court of Indiana rules otherwise, their ruling stands as final. Mario Apuzzo’s professed opinion (for he does not believe what he’s telling you, and never did) is completely irrelevant.

        7. PatrickJColliano says:

          PeterLettkemanRickBulow There is no such thing as a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. If there were, there would be no such thing as a “natural born citizen.”
          Please note, the Fourteenth Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States.”
          Please note, “all persons born…” There is no provision in the Fourteenth Amendment for an exception.
          If “all persons born” in the United States were merely “citizens,” (as if that were a separate category, which it is not) then no one would be a natural born citizen.
          There is no exception given for anyone who happens to be born in the United States who might be a natural born citizen. Therefore, everyone has just been demoted to “citizen,” if birthers were telling the truth (which they never do). Therefore no one would be eligible to be President.
          You see, I was born in the United States. And according to the Fourteenth Amendment, that makes me a citizen.
          And if birthers’ asinine claims were true, I could only be a citizen, no matter what my parents are. It says “all persons.” No exceptions, no extraordinary circumstances are provided for.
          But fortunately for us all, birthers are full of it. “Citizens” is a blanket term that includes natural born and naturalized. The fourteenth was created to overturn the appalling decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which claimed that no black person, whether slave or free, could ever be a citizen. It is merely intended to ensure that no person would be denied their birthright citizenship.

        8. PeterLettkeman says:

          It is called context and intent. The context of the words and meaning of the 14th amendment were to 
          1. Context. The amendment was passed as part of the civil war amendments and in reference to former Slaves rights to include being citizens. 
          2. Intent. to protect all rights. All rights meaning every citizen whether born here or naturalized. 
          http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

          It has however over the years been utilized to allow for illegal alien children to be considered citizens along with Chinese anchor babies. 
          It did in no way define natural born citizenship status or diminish that category. It did not make citizen a “blanket” term.
          It is not part of the naturalization process delegated to the congress nor does it define citizenship status.  
          USC code 8 1401 subsections (a) thru (h) explain how you can get citizenship status for everyone except those born of two citizens on U.S. Soil. I wonder why that is?? Maybe because it is the largest population group of Citizens those are the citizens that are Natural Born Citizens.
          If you were born here, the child of illegal aliens or tourists then the 14th Amendment says you are a citizen and it is defined by subsection (a) of USC 8 1401. 
          BTW your sixth paragraph is in contradiction of the 1st. Either you did or you didn’t get your citizenship status from the 14th amendment. 
          Here is a simple logic explanation. Maybe breaking it down Barney style will help you guys understand but I won’t hold my breath. http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/
          PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman RickBulow

  52. PeterLettkeman says:

    GregoryConteriocutting down the amount of text that I can type is pretty dishonest.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      PeterLettkemanGregoryConterio What a load of crap. You actually are using Benjamin Franklin graciously thanking someone for a gift as a logical reason that “natural born citizen” was a reference to Vattel? Especially in light of the fact that “natural born citizen” did not appear in ANY translation of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” until ten years AFTER the Constitution was written? Seriously?
      And yes, we CAN show you where the term “natural born citizen” was linked to English common law. There’s this certain body in the government of the U.S. known as the Supreme Court. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? When it comes down to the interpretation of the Constitution, there word is final. The only way Congress could possibly overrule a SCOTUS ruling on the subject of the Constitution is to impeach each and ever justice on the bench and have the President appoint judges who think as they do. Good luck with that.
      Well, in 1898, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide precisely what is meant by the term Natural Born Citizen, in a landmark decision, which has been referenced over 1000 times in court rulings. (As distinct from Minor v. Happersett, which hasn’t even been referenced fifty times.) This decision was known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which a man born in the United States to Chinese aliens, was being detained on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen.
      From the United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

      The Constitution of the United States, as originally
      adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and
      “natural-born citizen of the United States.”…
      The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning
      of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion,… In this as in
      other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law,
      the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers
      of the Constitution. …
      In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
      There is no common law of the United
      States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the
      common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself,
      applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be
      provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear
      exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The
      interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily
      influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of
      the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
      Notice, the Constitution uses the term “natural born citizen,” but nowhere defines the meaning of this term, therefore, the Constitution must be interpreted in the light of ENGLISH COMMON LAW.
      Game over for you. But I have no doubt that you’ll continue to spew your lies.

      1. p5151 says:

        PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio  Doesn’t the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a “natural born citizen”?
        The modern-day consensus opinion is:When the U.S. Constitution was being written, anyone born in England or its colonies was a natural-born subject.The word “subject” in English law is precisely analogous to the word “citizen” in American law.It therefore follows that anyone born in the United States must be a natural born citizen.
        This line of thinking arises, in part, from Justice Gray’s reasoning in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649 (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in California in 1873, well after the 14th Amendment was ratified (1868). His parents were Chinese immigrants and permanent legal residents of the United States, but were not U.S. citizens. In http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled, in a 6 to 2 decision, that Wong acquired U.S. citizenship at birth:The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. (Horace Gray, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html, 1898)
        The Wong Kim Ark ruling does not directly apply to Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility, for three reasons:The Supreme Court did not rule that Wong was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen. Even if Barack Obama’s circumstances at birth were identical to those of Wong Kim Ark, the Court’s ruling would, at most, only confer citizenship to the President. It would not confer natural born citizenship, which is what the President needs in order to be eligible to hold office.The Court ruled that Wong was a citizen because, at the time of his birth, his parents had “permanent domicile and residence” and was “carrying on business” in the United States. President Obama’s father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident. He was visiting the U.S. temporarily, to obtain an American education.The Court mentioned that Wong’s parents were subject to the http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/treaty1868.htm between China and the United States. That treaty contained an unusual provision, not found in other U.S. treaties, which recognized a Chinese immigrant’s “inherent and inalienable right” to change his “home and allegiance”. Although Chinese immigrants were not permitted to become naturalized U.S. citizens, they had an “inherent and inalienable right” to become nationals [http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn072] of the United States; and children born in the United States, of U.S. nationals, are citizens within the originally-intended meaning of the 14th Amendment (see section titled, Wong Kim Ark’s Parents were Technically Nationals of the United States, in http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-objectively-gray-propaganda-of-masked-rascals/). Obama’s father was not subject to any treaty which recognized a change of “home and allegiance” other than by naturalization.

        1. p5151 says:

          PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio (cont)  In his written Opinion, Justice Horace Gray cited sources which seem to suggest that natural born citizenship requires something more than mere birth on U.S. soil. For example, he quoted the following from Minor v. Happersett (1875):At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. (Minor v. Happersett (1875), as quoted in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649 (1898))
          Justice Gray also quoted from an article, by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Binney, which used the term “natural born” in connection with a child of a U.S. citizen, but not in connection with a U.S.-born child of an alien. In Binney’s opinion, both children were U.S. citizens, but only the U.S.-born child of a citizen was labeled “natural born”:The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. (http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#binney2, as quoted in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649 (1898))
          The Court’s Reasoning: Even though the Court did not hold (or rule) that natural born citizenship is determined by birthplace alone, Justice Gray’s reasoning seems to support that conclusion.Under English law, all children born on English soil (except the children of foreign diplomats and alien enemies) were natural-born subjects. According to Justice Gray, this English rule “continued to prevail” under the Constitution, suggesting that the http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+soli principle “controlled” the Constitutional meaning of natural born citizen.Justice Gray cited Lynch v. Clarke (1844), in which Vice Chancellor Sandford had ruled that Julia Lynch was a U.S. citizen at birth. Miss Lynch was born in New York, but at the time of her birth, her parents were not U.S. citizens. In his http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htm, the Vice Chancellor expressed his opinion that Julia Lynch was anatural born citizen. (See http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref14)Justice Gray also cited Circuit Court Justice Swayne’s opinion in http://www.scribd.com/doc/20825887/United-States-v-Rhodes-27-f-Cas-785-1866 (1866). According to Justice Swayne, the term “natural-born citizen” should be interpreted and understood according to English common law [http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn073]:All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. … We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. (Justice Swayne, as quoted by http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html, 1898)In the dissenting opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Fuller mentioned natural born citizenship:Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not. (C.J. Fuller,http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html, 1898)
          Why would Justice Fuller have mentioned “natural born citizen” in his dissenting opinion, unless he believed that the majority’s reasoning, when carried to its logical conclusion, affected the term’s meaning?In United States v. Low Hong (1919), the defendant was born in the United States, to alien parents. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htm that the defendant was a “natural born citizen” according to the reasoning of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (http://books.google.com/books?id=lnU4AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Low%20Hong&as_brr=1&client=firefox-a&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q=&f=false, 1920, p.74) [http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn074]According to Judge Dreyer (Ankeny v. Indiana, 2009), the Supreme Court did not rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen but the Court’s reasoning implied that he was:Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. (David J. Dreyer, http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf, 2009, boldface emphasis added) [http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn075]natural-born subjects “by law”.

        2. p5151 says:

          PatrickJColliano PeterLettkeman GregoryConterio (cont)    Based on these and other considerations, some Obama eligibility supporters have argued that Justice Gray’sreasoning, when carried to its logical conclusion, establishes that natural born citizenship is determined by birthplace alone, without regard to parental citizenship.
          Problems with Justice Gray’s Reasoning: Four facts directly impugn the Supreme Court’s reasoning in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:Justice Gray ignored (ruled “not admissible”) the transcripts of the 1866 congressional debates, which provide direct evidence as to the originally-intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment;Justice Gray relied heavily on an erroneous footnote in an article by Horace Binney;Justice Gray misrepresented five prior Supreme Court rulings, none of which supports his argument;Justice Gray blurred the distinction between “subjects” and “citizens”, and between natural-born subjects “in fact” and

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          p5151PatrickJCollianoPeterLettkemanGregoryConterio
          You raise a very good argument as to why the Wong Kim Ark decision should be overturned. (Not saying I agree, however.) But the fact remains, until such time as it is overturned, then their decision that a child born in the United States, even to aliens, is a natural born citizen, stands as final.
          You might, perhaps, present this argument to Congress and he might consider attempting a law or even an Amendment to change this. Or the Supreme Court might overturn the Wong Kim Ark decision. But until it does, the fact remains that Obama is a natural born citizen.
          By the way, the Wong Kim Ark decision doesn’t exactly mirror Obama’s. WKA was born in the U.S. to two aliens. Obama was born in the U.S. to one alien and one citizen.

  53. p5151 says:

    Rick, how can we or anybody else take you serious when you refuse to understand that Ted Cruz was born a Canadian citizen? And Mr. Conterio, I hope you understand that your version of the facts aren’t the same as millions of us out here who know that Ted Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen and will refuse to vote for him if he were nominated. That’s something you cannot change no matter who badly you twist the facts. This has been like trying to explain that 2 and 2 is four but you insist that it’s five…and you have MORE proof that you are correct. Believe what you will…maybe one day soon you’ll see what we’ve been trying to explain to you.

    1. PatrickJColliano says:

      p5151 That’s a pretty bald assertion. Millions who wouldn’t vote for Ted Cruz because they “know” he’s not a natural born citizen? I doubt you have even thousands who are stupid enough to believe that.
      Because of Cruz’s mother’s citizenship, he would be a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born. That’s the law, per 8 U.S.C. section 1401.

    2. PatrickJColliano says:

      p5151And the delectable smugness you display! “We’ve been trying to explain it to you…” as if you’d ever even heard of Vattel before the year 2008.
      You are not an authority on this subject. You don’t explain anything to anyone, since you don’t understand it…or the more likely explanation…you understand it perfectly but because of your unrelenting hatred of the president, you refuse to admit the truth, even to yourself.

      1. p5151 says:

        PatrickJColliano p5151 oh well, Patrick. You just keep believing what you want.

        1. PatrickJColliano says:

          p5151PatrickJColliano Well, p5151, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Obama trounced Mitt Romney in the last election, despite these phantom “millions” who supposedly “know” that a natural born citizen is supposed to require two citizen parents as well as birth in the United States?
          How, pray tell, did Obama win the election, despite these “millions” who “know” that Obama couldn’t be a natural born citizen?

        2. p5151 says:

          PatrickJColliano p5151 Patrick, Obama won because too many people like you have no clue what a natural born citizen is. Plus you surely are aware of the massive voter fraud. Obama didn’t WIN squat.  You’ve taken something so simple and basic and twisted it beyond belief. The logic in your question says a lot…how did Obama get elected if “millions” knew he wasn’t a NBC??? You know I’m just about fed up with this thread. I’m tired of being called a liar.

        3. PatrickJColliano says:

          p5151PatrickJCollianoWho called you a liar? You said millions of people supposedly “know” what a natural born citizen is and would vote against Ted Cruz for that reason. I’m simply asking, if that’s true, then how did Obama win against Romney?
          And you claim election fraud. Do you have proof of this?

  54. p5151 says:

    Quote:  “Game over for you. But I have no doubt that you’ll continue to spew your lies.”  I assume this was aimed at anybody who disagrees with this article. One fact is that the case of Wong Kim Ark DID NOT declare Wong Kim a natural born citizen. Read the ruling. Horace Gray’s remarks almost hint that Wong might be a NBC but then again you must understand Gray’s situation. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Chester Arthur who was the only president before Obama to not be a natural born citizen. Chester Arthur lied about his citizenship. Listening to Gray’s opinion would be like listening to Elena Kagan and her opinion on Obama’s citizenship.
        Voter fraud was predicted prior to the elections and we watched as they pulled it off. Getting more than 40% of registered voters to show up at the ballots has always been a challenge. When 100% and even more than that show up something is obviously wrong. Of course nobody wants to accuse this regime of cheating.

  55. Enoughallready says:

    III
    110th CONGRESS
    2d Session
    S. RES. 511
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
    April 10, 2008
    Mrs. McCaskill (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Obama, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Webb) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
    April 24, 2008
    Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment
    April 30, 2008
    Considered and agreed to
    RESOLUTION
    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a natural born Citizen of the United States;
    Whereas the term natural born Citizen, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term natural born Citizen;
    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
    That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
    They know what the Constitution meant my NBC. It  is persons such as those who wrote this article who attempt to muddy the waters. Notice that even now the words, “Born to American Citizens” Plural is used? Oh they know what it means, but they don’t want you to know what it means. For what reason? Political or Personal Gain? To a lot of people it is just Emotion over Fact which is a form of mental illness. I think therefore it is true mentality and will seek out anything that can be twisted to support their ideas or thoughts. I like what Ted Cruz has to say, but I will not vote for someone whom I know is not eligible. Will my vote make a difference? probably not, but it will make a difference to me. At the end of the day I will know that I was an informed voter who stood by the founders and wasn’t led astray by political zealots.

  56. Jon_Roland says:

    I have a comprehensive law review article at http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm which shows why Ted Cruz is not now eligible to serve as president, but also shows how he could become eligible.

  57. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    Question:  If the meanings of terms used in the Constitution is determined by U.S. code, what is the definition of “misdemeanor” in U.S. Code? I would like to know because that would be all that is required, according to the Constitution to impeach the President.  For example, intentionally writing a bad check of small amount is a misdemeanor.  Is that an impeachable offense?

    That aside, I really like Ted Cruz.  We need him right where he is, not in the White House. Same with Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Trey Gowdy, etc.  We need about a 100 more like them in Congress. We won’t find many to equal them, but we can at least find representatives willing to adopt their positions.  The problem is not the president but a cowardly, corrupt, unprincipled, worthless Congress.  Doesn’t matter who is in the White House.  This country is supposed to be run by Congress and the people. The president is merely the chief law enforcement officer for Congress.

    1. Jon_Roland says:

      Cowboy Up 1776 The U.S. Code does not and cannot define any term used in the U.S. Constitution. That would require the Constitution to derive its authority from statutes, but it is the other way around. 

      The only source for the meanings of the terms used in the Constitution is the ratifying conventions and the legacy of Anglo-American law from before 1787. That mainly means court cases and commentaries by legal scholars like Coke and Blackstone.

      1. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

        Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 
        I completely agree, Jon.  That was my point.  The author of this very detailed explanation of Ted Cruz’s eligibility is completely off base because it assumes that the term Natural Born citizen is defined by U.S. Code, which is incorrect.

      2. GregoryConterio says:

        Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776  – I’m sorry, but that is simply false.  There are a number of legal terms used in the Constitution which are deliberately left to Congress to define.  Further, by your own argument, NBC is clearly defined by Blackstone, as noted in the update to the original article above.  You will find a link to Blackstone’s commentaries there for your reference.

        1. Jon_Roland says:

          GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 No. There are terms that allow discretion for application, but that is not definition of the constitutional terms themselves.

          I cite Blackstone, but the main authority is Coke (who it the authority to whom Blackstone looked). I cite and quote both in my article, and both support no other position than mine.

          1. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 Apparently you need to read your own references then, Jon.  I quote from Blackstone directly above in the update to the original article.  And Blackstone defines the term the same way Section 1401 of the U.S. Code does.
            As to definition of legal terms, please show me where in the Constitution you can find the definition of Habeas corpus or even the words treason or misdemeanor.  All these terms appear in the Constitution, but are not therein defined, and all have legal meanings which have changed and evolved over time.  Legal opinion has consistently upheld the principle that Congress has the power to define these terms, and I have provided links to SCOTUS cases proving this.
            I have always found the “logic” of so-called “Birthers” to be lacking.  They insist they alone know with expert precision the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen, yet conveniently ignore the ONLY place the term is actually defined outside Section 1401, in Blackstone.  Further, they often insist Natural Born Citizen and citizen at birth are absolutely NOT synonymous, yet in the next breath insist Vattel, who never, ever used the term is the controlling authority on its meaning.
            The fact of the matter is, the meaning of the term NBC, and Congress’ power to define it have both consistently been upheld in each and every SCOTUS opinion on the matter without exception.

          2. Jon_Roland says:

            GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 I read my own references, cover to cover, and actually understand them. Some in the original Latin or Law French, as well as in the archaic English. I am the editor of the definitive online editions of most of these works. I am not just some casual layperson, but recognized as a legal historian by other legal historians.

            You have a serious English comprehension problem, and of course, don’t recognize that you do. Go submit your work to professional peer review. That is what you are getting from me.

            “Treason” is the only term defined in the Constitution, because the Framers wanted to give it a different meaning than it previously had (as in the Statute of Edward I). For all other meanings, start with Coke.

            As I have often pointed out, people quote the wrong paragraph from Vattel, out of context.

            There have been no court opinions whatsoever on the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

          3. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 Ah, the old “my credentials automatically make me right” argument. Personally, I would be more impressed if you addressed substance rather than trying to impress us with your CV.  When self-appointed “experts” are wrong, Which happens no less frequently than among the lay population, the results tend to be even worse.
            You keep going back to Coke, which is a flawed argument for two reasons: First, you imply that anything Cokes said automatically trumps Blackstone, who lived roughly 200 years later, and that there can be no change or evolution of terms or concepts.  Second, Coke opined in much the same way Blackstone did upon the notion of being a “subject born,” noting that the definition has changed over time due to the change in character of English commercial and foreign relations.  The fact is, both Blackstone and Coke recognized the changing nature of what it meant to be a “subject born,” and the duties and privileges which flow to such offspring from their parents.  And as I have several times noted, (and you continue to ignore) Blackstone’s comments on being a “Natural Born Subject” do not differ materially from section 1401 of the U.S. Code, which I have also lined to above.
            On the one hand, I’m happy to hear you accept that there is no SCOTUS opinion explicitly defining “NBC,” as is so often claimed by “birthers,”  but there most certainly have been cases which deal both with being a citizen at birth (Wong Kim Ark, as noted above) and Congress’ authority to define who is and is not a citizen. (Minor Vs. Happersett.)

          4. Jon_Roland says:

            GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 Coke was the main authority for Blackstone, and most of what he wrote is taken directly from Coke. Of course, he also covered some points of law not addressed by Coke, but this is not one of them. Both recognized change, but also fixed some of those changes, so that they did not change further before the meanings were frozen into the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
            Blackstone did put a Tory spin on law, compared to the Whig spin taken by Coke. That was addressed in a letter from Jefferson to Madison discussed at  http://www.constitution.org/lrev/jdr/mansfield_recon.htm

            There is no getting around it. To be natural born one must be physically born on the soil of a country. In this country that also makes one a citizen, but not in all countries. One can also be made a citizen by a statute independently of whether one is natural born, including from the date of birth. That is naturalization.

            Ted Cruz is naturalized; he is not natural born.

          5. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 “There is no getting around it.”  ..at least as long as you completely ignore SCOTUS rulings which explicitly acknowledge Congress’ authority  to define who is and is not “natural born,” and that there are only two types of citizen, not to mention Blackstone’s own words, which you continue to ignore, stating that children born to English subjects outside the realm of England are STILL English subjects by birth.
            You can repeat it as many times as you’d like, but that will not make it so.  What there is no getting around is the fact that there is absolutely no support for your contention to be found in court rulings.  All of the historical legal record is against you on this.  You can argue that the courts got it wrong, but the fact all of the cases I have cited disagree with your “spin.”

          6. Jon_Roland says:

            GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 There is no court decision, SCOTUS or otherwise, that recognizes a power of Congress to say who is “natural born” — only who is a naturalized citizen. Two entirely different concepts.

            Blackstone at that point was referring to a statute that naturalized foreign-born persons, conferring on them the privileges of being natural born, but that is not making them natural born, or redefining the term. I explain all that in my article. One can confer the same privileges (except for eligibility to public office) without a redefinition. That subtle but important point is what I mean about English comprehension.

          7. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 Wow, and I have an English comprehension problem?  I just quoted to the text to you from Happersett.  I don’t care what you might be a historian of, your notion of how this works is completely upside-down.  As I quoted from Wong Kim Ark there are TWO and ONLY TWO ways for a citizen to come into being: through the act of naturalization, or as a consequence of his or her birth.  Period.  I have never seen anything in any legal opinion entertaining the notion of a citizen being made by statute, and I challenge you to provide a single binding decision which explicitly does so.  They are not transformed from non-citizens into citizens, the fact of their citizenship as a consequence of their birth is simply recognized.  It’s like insisting the color blue does not exist until some court recognizes it.
            I did not go out searching for evidence to interpret in a fashion to support a conclusion I had already arrived at.  I started reading and researching this question when the issue of Obama’s status was first raised.  And I can tell you, as a conservative who knew from the beginning who Obama actually is, and what he represented, I very dearly wanted this to be true.  I wanted to find any legitimate loop-hole which might disqualify him.  But the deeper I dug, the clearer it became that regardless of where he was born, the fact of his mother’s citizenship made him a citizen at birth and this qualified.  There is not a shred of recognized legal opinion on this question supporting your view, and conspicuously, you have not provided any documentation yourself, you merely imply I don’t know how to read, or ignore the direct quotes I have provided from SCOTUS decisions which undermine your claim.  You are the one who is stubbornly refusing to consider anything beyond your own pre-conceived conclusion, not me.  As I said before, you can argue that it should not be this way, or that it should be changed, and you probably would have me join you in that.  But the law is the way it is.

          8. Jon_Roland says:

            GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 My article at http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm presents all the evidence and arguments you claim I have not provided. read it again, perhaps ten or twenty times until you get it.

            If Obama was not born on U.S. soil he is not natural born or eligible to be president. It makes no difference whether his mother was a U.S. citizen. That would make him a naturalized U.S. citizen at birth, but not natural born.

            A statute that makes one a citizen is a naturalization statute, by definition. That can be upon enactment or through a naturalization application process. Section 1401 cites such statutes, and we have all of the on our website. Search for “Statutes at Large”.

          9. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 I have not, nor do I intend to go running-off to read your little article, Jon.  I have provided quotes from original sources, specifically, SCOTUS opinions, which form the basis of the only legal authority that counts for anything on this matter.  The SCOTUS has ruled that there are only two types of citizen: natural born, and naturalized.  The law does not recognize your term, “naturalized at birth,” which frankly I think is nonsensical.  Even by your own arguments, being a form of naturalization, it falls directly and completely under the authority of Congress by your own admission, and yet Congress has not used that term, or defined any such statute.  
            Were Cruz’s citizenship to be challenged, unless the courts overturn all existing precedent on this matter, there is absolutely zero-chance your view will prevail. 
            This is a distinction between what the law is, and what you wish it to be.

          10. GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 
            That last point, I think, is important. When Ted Cruz’s citizenship is adjudicated, as I suspect it will be, this question will be put to bed. Not the question of what the law should be, mind, just the question of what the law actually is. And that is the point that Greg (and Patrick, in separate pieces) is making.

          11. Jon_Roland says:

            WesternFreePress GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 We can be almost certain that the eligibility of Ted Cruz or anyone else will never be adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court, who would dismiss it as a “political question” or as “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted”, or for lack of standing, because of the lack of particularized personal injury.

            There are only two points at which intervention might be attempted: when the electoral votes are counted and certified by the secretary of state of each state, and the point at which they are counted by the House of Representatives. That is because voters don’t vote for the president, but for electors, and only thei eligibility of the electors can be made an issue, not how they cast their votes. But the Supreme Court is not going to try to tell either how to do its job. They will refuse to do so and leave it to the voters to hold them accountable.

            So the decision on what “natural born citizen” means is left to all of us.

          12. Jon_Roland says:

            WesternFreePress GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 The issue of presidential eligibility will never be adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court, for Ted Cruz or anyone else. A challenge could only be made at the point when the electoral votes are counted and certified by the secretary of state of each state, or by the clerk of the House of Representatives. That is because voters don’t vote for president, but for electors, who may then vote for anyone they please. The Court is not going to tell any of them how to do their jobs, but leave it to the people to hold them accountable in the next election.

            Such a case would be dismissed as a “political question”, or for “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted”, or for lack of standing because the plaintiff has no particularized personal injury.

            So the decision about what “natural born citizen” means is left to us, the voters. But it is also likely that if too many people will decide not to vote for someone they believe not to be eligible, the parties are going to be reluctant to nominate such a person. Better to nominate someone for whom there is no doubt concerning his eligibility.

          13. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland WesternFreePress GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 And here, now we get to the real matter: Deliberately attempting to undermine a particular candidate’s standing, regardless of legal reality.
            No, Cruz will not have his eligibility overturned, but not because the court is so feckless.  It will not happen because there is a considerable body of legal opinion already decided on this issue supporting his eligibility.
            You are simply wrong.  You may wish the legal meaning of NBC to be interpreted your way, but it simply is not.  There is no statute mentioning a new class of citizen called “naturalized at birth” and there is no court opinion supporting your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen.”  As I said before, you can argue the court is wrong, but you can’t argue they haven’t said what they said.

          14. Jon_Roland says:

            GregoryConterio Jon_Roland WesternFreePress Cowboy Up 1776 Just because statutes do not use the exact phrase “citizen at birth” does not mean they are not doing that in less explicit or compact language, A statute that declares someone born to a U.S. citizen parent to be a citizen makes that person a citizen at birth if it does not specify an effective date other than the date of birth. In the absence of such a specification, “at birth” is assumed.

          15. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 From Minor vs. Happersett: “Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”

    2. GregoryConterio says:

      Cowboy Up 1776  – you miss the point: If Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is not a citizen at all, because he has never been naturalized, and thus would be ineligible to serve as a senator.

      1. Jon_Roland says:

        GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 Wrong.  Cruz was naturalized by a statute, without him having to apply for it. McCain was naturalized by another statute. They are now both naturalized citizens, but neither is a natural-born cit9ien.

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776  Now you’re just making things up.  Nobody has ever been “naturalized by a stature.”  It is an absurd claim.  There is not, and never has been any such thing.

          1. Jon_Roland says:

            GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 We have been discussing a section of the United States Code that codifies, and labels as such, naturalization statutes, that do not just create an application process, but declare classes of persons to be citizens, without them having to do anything. Every year Congress passes many private bills making individuals citizens — all of which are naturalization statutes that make people citizens (but not natural born citizens). So the number of such statutes numbers in the thousands.

          2. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 With all due respect, that is utter nonsense.  There are two “kinds” of citizen, and only two kinds: citizens at birth, and naturalized citizens.  ALL naturalized citizens must go through the naturalization process, by which they make an affirmative act of becoming a citizen.  From Minor vs. Happersett: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
            There has never been a person “made a citizen” by statute.  The citizenship status of various persons has instead been recognized as existing by the court.  There are no SCOTUS opinions acknowledging any other “types” of citizen except “at birth” and naturalized.  Legally speaking, they simply do not exist.

          3. Jon_Roland says:

            GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 There are two kinds of citizen, natural born and naturalized, and one may become naturalized by statute, including at birth, or through an application process. There is so  much evidence of all this that one would have to be delusional or willfully ignorant to overlook it. I don’t have time to keep pointing you to your errors. You are obviously determined to cling to your thesis despite all evidence and argument.

          4. GregoryConterio says:

            Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 “You are obviously determined to cling to your thesis despite all evidence and argument.”  What an ironic remark.

  58. PatrickJColliano says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the justices cited the opinion of British jurist Albert Venn Dicey. According to Dicey, a natural born citizen is anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth. And since Congress has the constitutionally-protected right to make uniform the rules for naturalization, as Congress extends citizenship at birth, they extend natural born citizenship.
    I’m not saying that I agree with this. However, that’s the way it is.
    As for impeaching the President, for that purposes, a “high crime or misdemeanor” is whatever congress says it is. There is no judicial oversight for impeachment proceedings, other than the Chief Justice to preside over it. However, the Chief Justice does not rule on this. Impeachment and removal from office is done entirely by vote of Congress, by the House and Senate respectively.

  59. PatrickJColliano says:

    Jon_Roland GregoryConterio Cowboy Up 1776 Sorry, Jon, but the courts disagree with you. Naturalization is a legal process. It is not bestowed by birth. Per U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, a natural born citizen is anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth. There is no such thing as “naturalized at birth.”

  60. PatrickJColliano says:

    GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 Greg, a most brilliant reply. And the Constitution uses Bill of Attainder, for instance, and Ex-Post Facto law. But it defines neither.
    As the SCOTUS is wont to do with terms undefined in the Constitution, it goes to common law. Which is what it did with Natural Born Citizen, and they decided a natural born citizen was anyone who acquired their citizenship at birth.

  61. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PatrickJColliano Cowboy Up 1776 Time for you boys to wake up and smell the coffee.  These terms had meanings, they have meanings. The meaning they have is not the meaning they had originally, thanks to the court, but none of it means a damn thing because it is obvious to everyone that when it comes to eligibility for President, there is no longer any controlling legal authority, as proved by the fact that we have a president who is a) not a citizen of any kind, or b) a criminal guilty of theft by fraud.  He attended college and law school as a foreign student.   Virtually anyone is now eligible to be president, as long as they meet the criteria if the king makers. If a tin foil hat wacko does question eligibility, the powers that be flash the mind zapper that was featured in Men In Black.  All questions then go away.

  62. PatrickJColliano says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 PatrickJColliano On the subject of “tin foil hat wackos,” where did you get this ridiculous idea that Obama “is not a citizen of any kind”? And where did you happen to hear that he attended “college and law school as a foreign student”?

  63. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PatrickJColliano Cowboy Up 1776

  64. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PatrickJColliano Cowboy Up 1776 Just my assumption from the fact that he was willing to commit fraud in presenting an obviously PhotoShopped document as a birth certificate, and the fact that all his personal records, up to the time of his running for office, have been sealed by court order, and other oddities, of which there are many, such as his attendance at a school in which enrollment was forbidden to American citizens.  There are many indications that his early life was a fabrication, but if not, why are his records sealed?  We have never had any presidential candidate whose background was completely closed. On the contrary, their lives are subject to intense scrutiny before they are ever nominated. But that is all beside the point.  Whatever the truth about Obama, the point is that his eligibility to be on the ballot was never questioned.  Neither party requested any documentation, and neither did any state official responsible for putting candidates on the ballot. That is the proof that, regardless of what the Constitution says, and what the Court says, as a practical matter, there is no controlling legal authority.  There is no official, legal process for validating eligibility, and there never has been.  It was never considered necessary.  Perhaps this will change, but right now, there is no accepted process to question the eligibility of Ted Cruz, or anyone else, on the basis of citizenship.

  65. JillWalker says:

    Excellent analysis of the situation. I have a JD degree and you have covered all bases. While the Supreme Court decides the law of the land, that “august” body knew that O was NOT a natural born citizen because his mother was too young to confer citizenship on him and his father did NOT have the same legal status as Ted’s father. Further, there is rather convincing and almost humorous documentation that O WAS born in Hawaii, just not the Hawaii we know. In Kenya, counties are called dormitories, and O was born in Hawaii, Kenya, just a stone’s throw from Hell’s Gate National Park. That said, almost all in Congress knew that O wasn’t eligible and the certifications sent to the Secretaries of States left out that he was “constitutionally” eligible to serve. Those certifications said he was “eligible to serve.” Quite frankly, the dems have nothing to say on this issue since they already opened that can of worms. As for those of us on the right . . .  well, I’d love to see Cruz as a viable choice for POTUS, though he is most effective in the Senate. Further, I don’t know if he can beat Jezebel in her (God won’t let it happen now just as he didn’t for the original Jezebel) quest for the throne. I guess conservatives are determined not to be hypocrites, and I don’t blame them for that lofty goal. However, I think your analysis is totally correct.

  66. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    JillWalker Thank you, Jill.  I really like Ted Cruz, but I do not want him to run for President.  I want him to stay in the Senate.  Same with Mike Lee and Rand Paul. The most important thing now is for the Senate and House to reassert their constitutional roles.  To do that, we need great minds and leaders in those bodies.  I need to know more about him, but right now my choice for President is Ben Carson, because he appears to understand the importance of limited government and the primacy of the individual, and because he is a man who can rise above pure partisanship, because he has not had to work his up way up through a party machine.

  67. Cowboy Up 1776 JillWalker We’ll have to see how Carson does on the stump. When he speaks now, he is so calm and soothing, which is nice, but that may not work well for a campaign.

  68. PatrickJColliano GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 I love common law, because it is an organic representation of accumulated human wisdom. Emergent order, baby.

  69. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    WesternFreePress Cowboy Up 1776 JillWalker   I agree. I am not all on the bandwagon yet, but his quiet, reassuring manner is the manner of a physician.  Well, we are mortally ill, and that may be a good style to deliver tough news.  We need firm, calm resolve and principle at the top, and battle leaders in Congress.

  70. Cowboy Up 1776 JillWalker 
    Indeed. It will all depend on whether people warm to that style or not. 
    Tell me what you think of this theory:
    http://www.westernfreepress.com/2012/11/27/are-we-reading-too-much-into-this-election/

  71. PatrickJColliano says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 JillWalker  I wish I could share your optimism; however, I have grave doubts as to whether a non-partisan could truly succeed as President. The Senate and House are virtually all partisan now. Anyone who doesn’t toe the party line will be chewed up and spit out. Should Carson (or whomever becomes President) annoy both parties sufficiently, he’ll simply be impeached.
    I mentioned this to you earlier, Cowboy Up, but while the Constitution says that impeachment occurs for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Congress could technically impeach for any old reason. They could impeach because they just don’t like the President. Andrew Johnson, the only other President who was impeached besides Bill Clinton, was impeached just because he stood in the way of the Reconstruction with the power of the veto. That is neither, treason nor bribery, nor is it any kind of high crime or misdemeanor (as defined in common law). That’s doing what the President has the power and constitutionally protected right to do.
    But there is no judicial oversight for impeachments. There is no judge to throw out evidence or dismiss cases because the President (or whomever is going to be impeached) has not committed the aforementioned crimes. Congress has the sole power of impeachment and consequently, treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors means any old damned thing they want it to mean.

  72. PatrickJColliano says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 PatrickJColliano  You seem like a nice guy…but just mixed up.
    First Obama’s birth certificate is probably not forged. Allegations of such are made by soi-disant experts with a confirmation bias. There have been bonafide experts, such as Ivan Zatkovich and Ricardo di Quieroz of the University of Brasilia. Zatkovich is a professional forensic document analyst and has served as an expert witness on this subject for over ten years.
    Quieroz owns six of the first 13 patents on mixed raster compression, the very science behind the documents that have been scanned.
    You can google their findings if you wish. But NEITHER one of them was able to say that this document was a forgery. All the supposed evidence of forgery, they both separately concluded, are the normal artifacts of someone simply scanning a document. Yes, some helpful individual might have adjusted the settings on the document to enhance the legibility, but they found no evidence of forgery.

  73. PatrickJColliano says:

    JillWalker  You might have a JD, but apparently that doesn’t extend to forensic document analysis. There is NO EVIDENCE, none, that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. When reviewed by actual forensic document analysts, such as Ivan Zatkovich, who has ten years experience as an expert witness, and Ricardo di Queiroz of the University of Brasilia, who holds six of the first thirteen patents on mixed raster compression, they find no evidence of forgery, and that the artifacts cited by these fake experts are the normal artifacts produced by scanning a document.
    Also, you’re wrong about whether or not Obama’s mother would be able to confer citizenship on her son. The law is to be interpreted as it reads today, not as it read at the time. For proof of this, see Bradley vs the School Board of Richmond. The Supreme Court makes it very clear that the law is to be applied as it reads today, not as it was at the time of the event. The only time that retroactive application of today’s laws would NOT be applicable is if it would place an undue burden on the affected parties, without notice or opportunity to be heard.

  74. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PatrickJColliano Cowboy Up 1776 JillWalker I agree about impeachment. It could be done for any reason, IF Congress had the numbers and the will.  That is a huge if. Congress is too evenly divided.  “Non partisan” was a term I used to describe Carson. That may be misleading.  From his statements, he is a very strong proponent of limited, constitutional government, but like Reagan, or Eisenhower, he had a very successful, non-political career.  I would like a president who will use the bully pulpit to educate and to restore the Constitution, but we really need for Congress to do the work and lead the way. That should be the battleground, not the Oval Office.  We need to delegitimize the imperial presidency. It was wrong under presidents of both parties who have chosen to rule by executive order, administrative and regulatory decrees, etc.

  75. splooshman says:

    Excellent article!  Share this one everywhere!

  76. splooshman says:

    JillWalker Well said!  Follow my tweets @splooshman on The American Patriot twitter site.  I’d love to hear more from you.

  77. SunnydSmiles says:

    The author of this article is WRONG, 
    Minor vs Happersett DOES indeed spell out the differences between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen at Birth….It is in Their written opinion of their DECISION of this case and those that will NOT acknowledge that are doing it on PURPOSE.  YES, although the case was about a woman’s right to vote, it does NOT DETRACT from what was said by the SCOTUS.

    The wording of their DECISION is this:  “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
     Neither Obama OR Cruz’s FATHER were Citizens at the time they were born–NEITHER of them are “Natural Born Citizen’s”

    in 1967 CONGRESS declared that George Romney (Mitt’s Father) could NOT run for POTUS as he was not a “Natural Born Citizen”. He and his FATHER were born in MEXICO –who has laws like ours, Children born of that country become Citizens at Birth.  Both his grandparents HAD been US Citizens but left the Country when bigamy was declared against the law.George Romney’s Father had NOT become a Citizen of the United States before George was born.

    I had the page bookmarked and was going to quote out of it, but an interesting thing happened when I went there….I got this message 
    “The document Natural Born Citizen – Congressional Record 6-14-1967 p 15875-80 has been deleted.”
    Makes one wonder if the GOAL is to change our Constitution by Fiat. We ALREADY know that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen according to the Defination of the term, and to put Cruz up for POTUS will indeed change the Constitution.
    The Author of this article is intentionally misleading people I think Cruz is a GREAT man….he is just INELIGIBLE to hold the highest office in the land!!!

    I HIGHLY expect to be attacked by the author of this page, because he, and his group of defenders have attacked anyone and everyone that disagree with them on other sites. That still does not change the facts. 

    I Suggest that people do their own research instead of just taking someone else’s word for this.

  78. SunnydSmiles says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 JillWalker I like Carson also, and I also like Allen West.

  79. PatrickJColliano says:

    SunnydSmiles You’re incorrect, Sunny, as always. And you are not mistaken; you’re deliberately lying. Minor v. Happersett did not define natural born citizen. It only stated that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents are natural born citizens. Nothing in their language restricted the term, nor did they intend to. They were establishing only the citizenship of Virginia Minor. They neither could, nor needed to, create a comprehensive definition of natural born citizen.
    For the benefit of those who are honest and can think critically, look at this way: Suppose I said, “The kangaroo is a mammal in which the female has a natural pouch that covers the teats and is used for carrying her young. The kangaroo is therefore a marsupial.”
    Would you derive from this that I’m saying that the kangaroo is the ONLY marsupial? Certainly not. Wombats, opossums, possums, koalas and other animals are all marsupials. In my previous statement, I’m simply saying that the kangaroo happens to be a marsupial, not that kangaroos are the only marsupials.
    In much the same way, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett is stating that those born in the United States to citizen parents are natural born citizens, a fact that no one has ever disputed. They are not saying that this is the only way one can be considered a natural born citizen. In fact, they deliberately avoid deciding the citizenship of those born in the United States “without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” because, “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary solve these doubts.”

  80. PatrickJColliano says:

    GregoryConterio Jon_Roland Cowboy Up 1776 You might also point out that the Constitution (as pointed out in Minor v. Happersett) recognizes only two types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. There is no such thing in U.S. law or the Constitution, as a “statutory born citizen.”

  81. PogueMoran says:

    JillWalker You have a JD Degree?  Are you currently practicing?  You are incorrect regarding Ann Dunham’s situation.  There was no need for Obama’s mother to meet the age requirement after the age of 14 since he was born in Honolulu Hawaii.  The birth certificate verified by the issuing authority in Hawaii shows he was born in Honolulu.  Further this is supported by the birth announcements and the 1961 INS file for Barack Obama Sr dated August 31st 1961 that he had a son born Barack Obama II August 4th 1961.  So no it’s not humorous.  You didn’t read all the letters you what what someone claimed they said.  What exactly do you think eligible to serve actually means?
    What can of worms?  They selected an eligible candidate that you couldn’t stand and made you guys go all whiny about it.  The democrats aren’t the one talking about Cruz’s eligibility it’s the birthers on the far right who have complaints.

  82. PatrickJColliano says:

    Jon_Roland GregoryConterio WesternFreePress Cowboy Up 1776 I’m afraid you have very little understanding of how the law works. You wrote: “Make no mistake. Such a statute makes one a citizen. If it were
    repealed, the person would cease to be a citizen. The effective date is
    at birth unless it states otherwise.”
    No, a person would remain a citizen regardless of whether the statute that made him a citizen were repealed.
    Once the law confers a benefit on someone, Congress may repeal the law, the benefit remains in place.
    Consider Charles Manson. Once upon a time, he was sentenced to death. Then the California Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was “cruel and usual punishment,” and Manson’s sentence was automatically commuted to life in prison. When California reinstated the death penalty, Manson was not placed back on death row. Such a situation would have the effect of an ex post facto law, something that is forbidden to the federal government and the states alike.

  83. PogueMoran says:

    Jon_Roland Hard to take you seriously when you concluded the President is ineligible and that his birth certificate is a forgery based on shoddy analysis of a digital scan of the document.

  84. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PatrickJColliano Cowboy Up 1776 Are you familiar with layers in PhotoShop.  I am.  I use it on a daily basis in my publishing business.  The birth document was created in layers.  It was not scanned.

  85. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PatrickJColliano Jon_Roland GregoryConterio WesternFreePress Cowboy Up 1776   I am trying to understand the above bit about once a benefit is conferred, it lasts forever.  You cited Charles Manson.  I am trying to think of similar situations.  Congress made treaties with various Indian tribes. These treaties conferred certain benefits. Those are still all in effect correct?  Regardless of changes in law since then?   What about benefits for Veterans?  Benefits have been granted to members of the military as part of their compensation.  So, you are saying that regardless of changes in the law, the benefits granted remain the same, or better, as they were at time of enlistment?   What about social security?  Benefits cannot be changed by Congress?  The age cannot be raised?  What about health care for Federal employees?  Congress had conferred benefits of a Federal health insurance program.  I don’t believe those benefits are still in place.

  86. SunnydSmiles says:

    PatrickJColliano SunnydSmiles  How full of it are you?

    “They are not saying that this is the only way one can be considered a natural born citizen”….

    *rotfl* REALLY?? IF there were OTHER ways be be one, don’t you believe it would have been stated?

    OH, to call one a “Liar” just because they don’t agree with you…Same BS you have done before. Kind of reminds me of a child that calls names when they don’t get their way.

    When you try to twist the words of the Courts, WHICH by the way, Minor vs Happersett is not the ONLY place “Natural Born Citizen” has been defined, but the one that I selected since you had it at the top of your list…I just have to say…WHAT is up your @ss that you can’t see ANOTHER view when you INSIST that people see yours?

  87. PogueMoran says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 PatrickJColliano Absolutely incorrect since reading the meta data there is no proof of photoshop.  You didn’t see layers in photoshop you opened it in illustrator which is a program that isn’t meant to be used the way you’ve used it.  If you take any pdf document into illustrator you see layers.  

    The birth document was created most likely on a Xerox workcenter scanned in via the email function and opened and saved in mac preview.

  88. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PogueMoran PatrickJColliano   You obviously think you know something.  That is nice.  Everyone should have that feeling once in awhile.  It is better when the feeling is reality based.

    Where is the original?

  89. PogueMoran says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 PogueMoran PatrickJColliano The original is in the vault in Hawaii.  The certified copy was issued to Obama and still resides with him.  Do you think he should mail 300 million or so copies to every American and do something no previous President before him has been required to do?
    You’re the one pretending to be an expert based on you being a copy boy.  He was never under any obligation to show one publicly and instead coddled you twice.

  90. Cowboy Up 1776 says:

    PogueMoran Cowboy Up 1776 PatrickJColliano Actually, the original is given to the parents. This is how people are able to sign up for Little League, get passports, register for school, apply for a driver’s license, apply for citizenship, etc.  So, according to you the president has this original birth certificate, bearing the state seal of Hawaii, issued to his mother, but has shown it to no one, during all this controversy.  Also, he has taken the extreme measures of sealing his school records, transcripts, and passport.
    Nothing unusual at all in this pattern of behavior.

  91. PogueMoran says:

    Cowboy Up 1776 PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Umm no only a copy is given to the parents.  The original stays with the issuing authority.  So there you go you’re completely clueless on how birth certificates are created and issued.  No one ever sees their originals.  Are you seriously claiming no one in Hawaii even the Little League championship Hawaii team has a proper birth certificate?  The short form birth certificate that Obama showed back in 2008 is the official birth certificate format that Hawaii has used since about 2001.  It’s what they issue when you want a copy.
    A state issued birth certificate saying you were born in that state wouldn’t be needed to apply for citizenship since those born in America are born citizens and have no need to naturalize.  So there you go several errors in your opening.

    The only thing his mother ever had was a copy.  Remind me which section of the constitution requires a president to show an original birth certificate from the year of their birth?  Not just that but you seem to want him to pass it around to every American.

    There you go lying again.  He hasn’t sealed anything.  School records are protected under federal law under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974.  It protects you and I from unlawful access to our school records much as it protects the President.  Have you seen Clinton’s school records?  How About Jimmy Carters?, Fords?  How about Reagan’s college grades?  Bush Sr?  Sounds like you want to create a double standard where none existed before.

    Passport records for living persons are also protected.  Can you show me Bush’s passport?

    Yes you’re right there is nothing unusual in this pattern of behavior since it’s standard for Presidents.

  92. SunnydSmiles says:

    PatrickJColliano  A while back, I found a site that shows better than I can, how wrong your assertion about the term “Natural Born Citizen” and Cruz is. 
    The author goes more in depth than I have, and if you REPLACE Squeeky Fromm’s  name with yours, it knocks down every argument you have made—even your Kangaroo argument. (Funny, Squeeky tried that one too)

    Like Squeeky Fromm, you are just
    making stuff up given that you have nothing to present to us which would
    show that your premises are true. AND like “Squeeky”, you dismiss Minor as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s
    eligibility, arguing that Minor did not define or deal with children
    born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect. Minor told
    us that at common law with which the Framers were familiar, such children were
    “aliens or foreigners.”
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    I DARE you to go read the blog.

  93. SunnydSmiles says:

    PatrickJColliano However…In the SCOTUS ruling on it, and in their decision, they brought up the Constitution of the United states of America–and DEFINED what a Natural Born Citizen is….Missouri laws do NOT define a Natural Born Citizen, nor does the Missouri Constitution.

  94. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano Lol Mario Apuzzo.  We’ve read that blog.  Remind me how many times Apuzzo has won in court using these claims?  I’ll give you a hint… It’s zero.  Apuzzo had to beg the court not to sanction him for filing a frivolous lawsuit.  Mario also heavily moderates his blog.  You should think before taking the word of a DUI lawyer.

  95. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano Minor was a voting rights case.  Nowhere did they hold natural born citizenship to exclusively refer to those born of two citizen parents.  They specifically avoiding the issue.  Also the dicta statement had no effect on the ruling of the case thus has no relevance.  You also forget the case was made moot by constitutional amendment.

  96. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano he mentioned…At least HE has had the GUTS to stand up for what he believes instead of just running his MOUTH and sitting on his ass…

  97. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano *SMH* so, you are saying you CANNOT read? because when you READ their decision, that is EXACTLY what I get…that there are Natural Born Citizens, Citizens, and NATURALIZED citizens.

  98. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Stand up?  No he doesn’t.  Mario has been mum about who has funded his grifting operation.  He asked for donations from his supporters and has bogged down the courts with nonsense.  He gave this up for the most part about a year ago.  Which is why he stopped doing new articles.  There’s no guts in banging your head repeatedly against a wall and expecting different results.  That’s called insanity.

  99. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano You’re apparently not comprehending what you read then.  Since this is not what they say.  They did not claim that the only way to be natural born is to have two citizen parents.  There are only two types of citizens according to MInor V Happersett you’re either natural born or naturalized.  There is no such thing as a plain citizen who is neither natural born nor naturalized.

  100. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano Just like your saying Cruz is Eligible is insane..but what the hell, I forget how you and your cohorts are on here…attack anyone that does not agree with you…

  101. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Where did I make the claim?  I’m just responding to your nonsense.  This isn’t attacking you it’s attacking your batshit crazy claims.

  102. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano ““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.””
     Oh, and by the way, the Constitution REQUIRES “Citizen” at the TIME OF SIGNING …or NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…WHY you ask? because NO one met the REQUIREMENTS of Natural Born citizen at the time the Constitution was Created. They WERE citizens,but NONE of them were BORN TO PARENTS that were Citizens..

  103. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano Really, and attack this…I can supply these ALL day, all you can put up is your belief….

    http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme Court

  104. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano Ahhhh…there we go with the name calling, KNEW it was just a matter of time until you started it…

  105. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano And what does the next sentence say?  The only thing that the passage says it’s never doubted that all children born in the country of citizen parents are citizens also.  It says some people have doubts of those born of alien parents.  Nowhere does it claim the children of alien parents are considered alien or foreign.  It doesn’t say that the justices themselves had doubts just some people had some.  For the purpose of the case it wasn’t necessary to resolve the doubts some people might have.

    Nowhere is that passage exclusive.  Actually if I was a birther and I read the passage as written it says that those born a citizen of the united states and then says or a natural born citizen.  Citizen of the united states and natural born citizen would be separate from each other.  It doesn’t say where the natural born citizen had to be of.  But I’m not a birther and know how to read. 

    A natural born citizen is simply one who was born a citizen.  Which is why your argument continues to fail in court no matter how many words you try to capitalize.

  106. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Same set of writers as apuzzo.  Same nutjob claims.  How many cases have the article 2 super pac people won?  That’s right zero.  How much money have they tried raising?  That should send off a red flag to you.  Yes you can supply wrong claims all day but at the end of the day you’ll still be wrong.

  107. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Pay attention I called your claims batshit crazy.

  108. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511: passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

  109. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Laughable list hard to take them seriously when they open with citing cases incorrectly.  The Venus doesn’t say two citizen parents to be natural born citizens.  US V. Wong Kim Ark destroys their claim and supports the exact opposite and says a natural born citizen is one born on US soil regardless of the status of the parents as long as the parents aren’t diplomats or an invading army.

    Perkins V Elg also doesn’t support the claim saying that it means only one born of two citizen parents.

    Scott V Sanford?  Really you guys want to lead with this one that basically claimed slaves weren’t citizens.  Shanks V Dupont also doesn’t support the claim

  110. SunnydSmiles says:

    PogueMoran SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano Is that so amazing when we have someone in POWER that is INELIGIBLE? OMG talk about batshit crazy…

  111. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Relevance?  I notice you skipped the whole condition for John McCain.  They also said born on a military base.  Are you claiming that all presidents have to be born on military bases of citizen parents?  There’s a reason why that resolution was passed.  McCain wasn’t born on US soil.

  112. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PogueMoran PatrickJColliano Yes batshit crazy considering he is eligible.  200+ lawsuits on this each one a failure by those on your side arguing these claims.  Get over it he’s legally and lawfully the President, whining about it isn’t going to change that.

  113. PogueMoran says:

    SunnydSmiles PatrickJColliano You’re obviously unaware what the scope of the supreme court actually is.  They don’t define legal terms.  Nowhere did they make an exclusionary definition.