Here is a comment I posted in response --
As you correctly, though indirectly, point out, being a natural born citizen is not about *where* a person is born.
At the same time, while this is true -- “This is the simple and indisputable definition: Two citizens who have a child, naturally create a new citizen. This is a Natural Born Citizen” – it’s actually the case that it is true because natural born citizenship is inherited from the father; this is what the Founders understood and meant by the term.
These days, as people want to pretend that sexual egalitarianism is the truth about nature and about society – if one can even get them merely to admit that the above is what the Founders understood and meant by the term – people will tend to assert that natural born citizenship can be inherited from either parent … never mind that no law (*) has ever been enacted to so change the meaning of the term. BUT – and what such people will then *refuse* to acknowledge – if that were the case, then a person so born of citizens of two different countries would be a “natural born citizen” of two different sovereignties, which is a logical impossibility: or, as you put it, a “mule”.
(*) I question whether Congress even has the power to make such a change to the meaning of the term, absent a Constitutional amendment.
7 comments:
I think it's questionable whether the founders were intending to incorporate into the Constitution an existing law of how citizenship originates.
Everything is "questionable" when people don't want to acknowledge the truth. You've been indoctrinated into leftist-endorsed falsehoods -- as have we all -- and you're resisting seeing the truth. That I understand the difficulty you're going through doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the truth is other than it is.
Assume that the common law said that everyone born of an American father is an American citizen. Then the Constitution is passed, and Congress makes it a new law that to be born an American citizen, you must have both an American mother and an American father, and you must be born on American territory. Under your reasoning, in that scenario people could be eligible to be elected president even if they were not American citizens.
Drew, I don't even begin to understand how you came up with that interpretation of what I have been saying.
The point is that if "natural born citizen" just means "someone who is born a citizen" (as I suggest), then Congress has the power to make citizenship laws, and whoever fits the latest congressional law at the time of their birth qualifies to become president. But if "natural born citizen" means "someone who is born of an American father" (as you suggest), then the constitutional definition overrides Congress, and technically a foreigner, non-citizen could qualify as a "natural born citizen" if Congress's law turned out to be more strict than the Constitution's definition.
More importantly, I think that all the ancient quotes which people cite to define what a "natural born citizen" means, may just have been intended to be a description of the law at the time of their writing, rather than a universal definition of the term forever. If an ancient text says, "We know that natural born citizens are generated under these circumstances," it does not imply that natural born citizens cannot be generated under different circumstances once the law changes. Rather, the ancient text may mean simply, "Under our present law this is how people become citizens through birth."
And I don't even like Ted Cruz.
"The point is that if "natural born citizen" just means "someone who is born a citizen" (as I suggest), then Congress has the power to make citizenship laws, and whoever fits the latest congressional law at the time of their birth qualifies to become president."
Where in the Constitution is Congress given "the power to make citizenship laws"? Where is Congress given the power to redefine the meaning of 'citizen'? For, that is exactly what you are asserting Congress has the power to do.
And, if Congress has this power, then what is to legally prevent them enacting a law to declare that all human beings, everywhere, are citizens of the United States? Or, going in the other direction, if Congress has this power, then what is to legally prevent them enacting a law to declare that no one but members of Congress and their descendants are citizens of the United States?
The answer to both questions is: nothing; if Congress has this expansive extra-Constitutional power, then they have it, and may use it as they see fit. For, after all, once the Constitution itself is "unconstitutional" or "just a suggestion", then *anything* may be done by those who would rule us.
"But if "natural born citizen" means "someone who is born of an American father" (as you suggest), then the constitutional definition overrides Congress, and technically a foreigner, non-citizen could qualify as a "natural born citizen" if Congress's law turned out to be more strict than the Constitution's definition."
First: "natural born [US] citizen" doesn't mean "someone who is born of an American father", it means, "someone who is born of a father who is a US citizen at the time of the child's birth". Thus, one could be a natural born US citizen, and thus Constitutionally eligible to be president of the US, while one’s older sibling is merely a naturalized US citizen, and thus Constitutionally ineligible to be president of the US.
Second: your sentence/claim doesn’t even make sense. “Natural born citizen/subject” is a sub-set of “citizen/subject”; it’s logically impossible to be both a natural born citizen and a non-citizen. Most US citizens are natural born US citizens, but that doesn’t make the two terms coterminous or identical.
"More importantly, I think that all the ancient quotes which people cite to define what a "natural born citizen" means, may just have been intended to be a description of the law at the time of their writing, rather than a universal definition of the term forever. If an ancient text says, "We know that natural born citizens are generated under these circumstances," it does not imply that natural born citizens cannot be generated under different circumstances once the law changes. Rather, the ancient text may mean simply, "Under our present law this is how people become citizens through birth.""
Why were the 14th and 15th Amendments necessary as amendments? Why was the 19th and Amendment necessary as an amendments?
Precisely because citizenship isn’t a mere matter of statue which Congress may modify as the whim, or political winds, take them.
“And I don't even like Ted Cruz.”
Ironically, if he *were* a natural born US citizen, he’s only one of them I’d wish to vote for. But, he’s not, so I will not. Moreover, his lack curiosity to get to the real heart of the matter indicates to me that he really can’t be counted upon to abide by the Constitution.
Matt Walsh recently said, in reference to Trump and Trump supporters, “Dear Christians, if you vote for a Godless man, you are asking for tyranny.”
Now, his statement is true, but it may be even more generalized as, “Dear Citizens, if you vote for a Lawless man, you are asking for tyranny”. The reason it can be so generalized is Godlessness *is* lawlessness, and lawlessness *is* Godlessness.
Post a Comment