Thoughts Aloud

â—„Daveâ–º says:

I am dumbfounded that you two could conclude that those two analysis’ are essentially the same. The first is lawyerly spin, which avoids discussion of the real issues involved, intended to legitimize the current usurper. The second rather specifically suggests that under natural law a child, wherever born, inherits the citizenship of his FATHER, and it is acknowledged that neither Obama nor Cruz had American citizen fathers.

In either case, they are no more authoritative than contrary opinions by other legal scholars, which I have linked to all over this site for the past six years. Personally, I would put more faith in the objectivity of my 8th grade civics teacher, who was following a curriculum designed to teach the Constitution to American students, long before there was any ambiguity or conflict over the meaning of the term.

Speaking of which, I am weary of the lament that our Founders failed to define ‘natural born,’ as if that was a careless oversight on their part, leaving it open to creative interpretation. They didn’t define all manner of terms, which are no longer in common usage; yet were unambiguous to anyone encountering them at the time. Where did they define ‘militia,’ ‘commerce,’ or even ‘money?’ There was no nuance to the meaning of these terms at the time; yet we torture them today. How about ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal,’ ‘Bill of Attainder,’ ‘Duty of Tonnage,’ ‘Corruption of Blood,’ etc.? There was no legalese-inspired ‘Definitions’ section.

It does refer to the “Law of Nations,” however, which is the name of the law book by Vattel that was the recognized authority on international law at the time of the drafting of our Constitution, and much referenced by our Founders. In it, a very clear definition of ‘natural-born’ can be found:

§ 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.

Whatever one’s agenda, or lawyerly opinions, no fair analysis of the meaning of this term, could dismiss this passage as unworthy of consideration, or denigrate those who suggest it is important as ignorant fools. Especially, when one reads the letter to George Washington, by John Jay on July 25, 1787, which actually instigated the inclusion of this eligibility requirement in the Constitution, without objection or debate:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

To me, common sense would suggest that reference to these historical documents makes their intent rather clear, and that allowing a man such as Obama, who (from the perspective of Great Britain) was born a British subject owing fealty to the Queen, because his father was, would be precisely what they were attempting to avoid. The same would be true of Cruz, who could probably obtain a passport from Canada or Cuba if he tried. Like it or not, our Constitution means precisely what it says, or it is a meaningless and quaint antique parchment, just as the Progressives claim. â—„Daveâ–º