Guns & Patriots

Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen, just like John Fremont and Chester Arthur

According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nation’s chief executive.

How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.”  In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.

For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth.  Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth.  Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.

Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency.  Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot.  Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!

Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.

Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States.  Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.

Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent?  You betcha!

The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont.  He was born in Georgia to an American mother and a French father.  Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France.  He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont.  One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.

The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.

John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency.  Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.

Sign Up
  • dusel1

     Arthur fell through the crack through deception, same as King Hussein.

  • dusel1

    “A natural born citizen is not dependent upon Congress
    passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed
    as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why “natural born citizenship” is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be “natural born” citizen of that state.” – Herb Titus, Esq.

  • dusel1

    That’s true. A nephew of mine whose parents were citizens, was born on a U.S. Air Force base in England. He had to obtain his citizenship through naturalization.

  • dusel1

    It’s highly likely that the idiots who allowed Arthur on the ballot were as ignorant as those that feel Rubio and Obama are NBCs.

  • http://www.grandoldpartisan.com/ Michael Zak

    It was well known at the time of his election that Chester Arthur’s father had been born in Ireland and was not a U.S. citizen when his son was born. The citizenship of Arthur’s parents was not relevant to Chester Arthur being a natural born citizen, which he was.

  • http://www.grandoldpartisan.com/ Michael Zak

    You are making things up. Stick to the facts.

  • http://www.grandoldpartisan.com/ Michael Zak

    The citizenship of the parents of John Fremont and Chester Arthur and Charles Evans Hughes — all U.S.-born natural born citizens. So too is U.S.-born Marco Rubio a natural born citizen.

  • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

    Let me explain a little about the Article II “natural born citizen” (Article II nbC) phrase.

    First of all,  Article II nbC is only talking about the citizenship of the father and has nothing to do with place of birth or the mother.  The confusion is caused by attorneys and so called experts who are convinced that the term natural born Citizen in Article II is an undefined term in the Constitution that is wanting for a definition.  They then proceed to look for a “definition” to plug into, substitute into, Article II.  Then they come across the second sentence of section 212 of Vattel or the statement in Minor v Happersett, “born in the country to parents who are citizens” and they rip that out of context and assert that one just inserts that as a definition into Article II and voila problem solved.  I am afraid that this is very pathetic and shows how incompetent the attorneys are on this issue.  The issue is not that simple.  They fail to even simply apply a little logic and fundamental properties of law.  If they would do that they would soon discover the true meaning and interpretation of Article II nbC.
     
    First, the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II is perfectly defined in Article II by CONTEXT and English grammar, specifically, by POLITICAL context since the office of President is the highest political office in the land.  It only requires the simple application of a little logic and principles of the Laws of Nature in order to understand Article II nbC meaning.  Since we are talking about political rights in Article II, the context is one of Natural Rights not Legal Rights which are the opposite of Natural Rights.  We are talking about Natural Rights because political rights are Natural Rights.  All Natural Rights are inherited from other humans by definition of the Laws of Nature (see Declaration of Independence, all men are CREATED equal and endowed with LIBERTY a natural political right).  Therefore, Article II is talking about inherited political rights or those who inherit their citizenship as a natural right since citizenship, which is defined as the right of membership in the society, is a political right. 

    There are only two types of “rights”, natural rights which are inherited and legal rights which are a grant of a privilege from governments statutory authority.  So the rights of citizenship come in two forms, a natural inherited right and a legal right.  The legal form of citizenship is not a natural inherited right, but is an artificially created legal right privilege called “naturalized” citizen that is granted by government.
     
    Therefore, Article II qualifications are such that only those who can claim a natural inherited right to membership in the society can qualify, hence “natural born” as a qualifier on the type of citizenship required.  This is meant to convey that those who must rely on the statutory authority of government to claim their citizenship as a legal privilege do not qualify for the office of President.  This is meant to deny Congress the ability to create the office of President to be a legal privilege that Congress can grant to their buddies and thus create a monarchy form of government and disenfranchise the People from their natural sovereign authority over the government.  Right away this eliminates the soil jurisdiction from any relevancy because we do not inherit our natural claim to membership in the society from soil jurisdictions.  The place of birth does not determine our natural right to make a claim to natural membership in the society that is governed by their soil jurisdiction.  The soil is used solely by the government to extend artificial privileges just like the King did in the days of old under a monarchy.  We retained that aspect of law, called “subject” status as in the king’s “subjects”, via the king’s soil dominion, in order to grant government the authority to extend legal political privileges like naturalized citizenship, via soil or the State’s jurisdiction.
     
    So, with simple logic and the application of the differences between Natural Law which gives us Natural Rights which are inherited, and Positive Law which gives us legal rights which come from government, and the fact that Natural Law is defined in jurisprudence to be the “opposite” of Positive Law (man made law), we have proven that there are only two types of citizens, those who have a natural claim to membership in society, and those who have an artificial claim to membership in society.  We have shown then, that Article II nbC cannot possibly mean born in the country to parents who are citizens because we have eliminated the soil from having any relevancy by realizing that Article II is talking about inheritance of natural political rights. 

    This is why Justice Ginsburg, in Nguyen v INS, knows that her grandson qualifies as a natural born citizen for Article II purposes even though he was born in France. Likewise, McCain qualifies because he was born to citizen parents.  Therefore, we have proven that Article II is talking about inherited citizens who have a claim of a natural political right to membership in the society which can only come from a parent which has nothing to do with soil jurisdictions.  Next we only need to examine if it is one or both parents and if it is only one then which one.

    Vattel just starts off with the special case, or ordinary case, in order to convey to the reader the concept of natural membership in society which is what a native person is, an individual who has a natural claim to membership in the society. If you are born in the country to two citizen parents, you are a native by definition, then there is nothing to adjudicate and you do not have to rely on governments statutory authority to define your membership in society.  The same is also true if you are just born to a citizen father.  Born in the country to citizen parents is the ordinary case but not the general principle of what gives one a right to a natural claim to membership in the society .  That is why Vattel begins there so that the reader will understand the context of the discussion that is about to follow in the rest of section 212 and following sections which deal entirely with determining our same issue, which is how does one obtain a natural claim to membership in the society as a natural right.  That is what Vattel explains in the rest of the section 212 and following sections as the mechanics of inheritance and by which parent or parents this is determined by (the father). 

    It’s these general principles that Vattel relates of how one obtains a claim of a natural right to membership in the society that apply to Article II nbC, not the ordinary case because the ordinary case would trump the claim of naturally inherited rights of the father’s offspring just because they were not born in the country and that is impossible because natural rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away by statutory decree.  This is why Vattel says further on that “the place of birth can provide no reason from taking from a child what nature has given him” (e.i the natural claim to membership in the father’s society via inheritance from the father).  This is why McCain qualifies, contrary to my earlier statements.  It is not the intention of Article II to disenfranchise the offspring of citizen fathers from their natural rights of claiming a natural right to membership in the society (as if government even has the authority to do that) just because they are born outside of the U.S. when their father’s are on vacation with his family or serving his government overseas. 

    Likewise, the female mother cannot disenfranchise her offspring from claiming a natural right to membership in their fathers society by demanding allegiance to her society as a superior right to that of the fathers, if her society is different from the father’s society, otherwise the male father and children would have their natural rights violated.  Therefore, it requires a voluntary consent on behalf of the parties (mother and father and nation states) in order to settle this dispute and avoid conflicting natural allegiances.  By convention and mutual agreement it is recognized by the laws of marriage and the laws of nations via treaties, that the children follow the father as far as the claim to natural membership in the society and owed allegiances.  This is what Vattel explains further on in section 212 and 215 etc. 

    This is not an inequity for females because they voluntarily agree to waive their claim in favor of the father of their offspring in order to benefit the children so there will be no conflict and the children will not be torn between two societies and torn between their parents. This is why it is understood that females pledge their allegiance to their husbands and grant him property rights to claim the children for his society and sexual property rights of exclusivity, and society does not expect the offspring of the female to pledge a political allegiance to their mothers society. 

    This is even true in monarchy forms of government where female royalty is married off to a foreign male prince.  Her offspring are not expected to retain a political allegiance to their mothers native country/society but her offspring will inherit political rights within the father’s society and be expected to have an allegiance to their fathers society otherwise the father would not marry the foreign princess mother.  It is hoped that the offspring will look favorably upon their mothers society so that it will cement relations between nation states.  Even in monarchy forms of government, they have always historically favored the male offspring to become king.  It is very rare that female offspring get to be queen and in most cases this causes political unrest and warfare. 

    Even in the case where a female gets to be queen, she can only be queen as a function of a legal decree or legal right.  Her right to be queen is not recognized as a natural inherited right like it is for the males, and is contrary to the natural order, which is why historically, females have not been accepted as queens and it has caused much warfare and political unrest in most cases, even in England, despite the few queens that England has had, most of them have occurred with much warfare and civil unrest.  You can practically count on one hand the number of queens that there has ever been throughout all of Europe over thousands of years.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Smith/100000158882332 Kelly Smith

    How would any of the men you speak of in your article, including John McCain, even be a US citizen without USC : Title 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY? If Title 8 did not exist, I would still be a US citizen; They would not. Rubio was an anchor baby. Anchor babies are granted citizenship via Title 8.

    P.S. – Nobody knew about Chester Arthur’s status until researcher recently discovered that he had hidden and lied about age to make it seem that his father had been naturalized before his birth……sound familiar?

  • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

    But Hughes wasn’t a natural born Citizen.

    Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email highlights a very important historical analysis of the natural born citizen clause with regard to former Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:

    During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”  Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:


    “Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.
    He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.”  But is there not a distinction “native born” and “natural born”?  At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England.  His father had not then been naturalized.”


    Long goes on to make the case that Hughes was not a natural born citizen.

    Furthermore, the Long article fails to mention former President Chester Arthur.  Had Long knew Chester Arthur had also been born to a British subject father, then Long would have been forced to discuss that fact.  But he didn’t.  The general public didn’t know Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject when Chester was born until December 2008 when that fact was first published.

    Lastly, John Fremont was a bastard, therefore, his natural right to inherited citizenship was bestowed on him at birth by his American citizen mother.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Smith/100000158882332 Kelly Smith

    Oh, Abraham Lincoln understood the Constitution just as well as Obama does. Just that neither gave a cr*p as witnessed by the blood of 620,000 Americans. East and West Germany seperated and rejoined again without the loss off 620,000 lives.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Smith/100000158882332 Kelly Smith

    Rubio and Jidal were naturalized at birth by law ( USC : Title 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY), not by inherited birthright .  My nationality was inherited by birthright. Title 8 does not affect me. US Code can naturalize you at birth or anytime up until death. US law cannot change my natural citizen birthright. Just as US Code cannot take away Robio’s natural born Cuban inherited birthrights.

  • http://www.grandoldpartisan.com/ Michael Zak

    Breckinridge Long, who was never Secretary of State, is the Democrat operative mentioned in my article. Not even other Democrats agreed with his ludicrous claim that Charles Evans Hughes was not eligible to be president.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Smith/100000158882332 Kelly Smith

    Rep John Bingham, Father and authur of 14th Amendment would disagree with you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Smith/100000158882332 Kelly Smith

    Yes, Georgia got permit approvals from the Obama NRC for two new nuclear power plants to be built in exchange for the cooperation of Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge in Atlanta, in the challange to keep Obama off the the Georgia ballot. First permit approvals in 34 years. Permits were submitted 4 years ago but there are some much older applications hanging around for 26 other plants in other states.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Smith/100000158882332 Kelly Smith

    REP. JOHN BINGHAM, FATHER AND AUTHOR OF THE
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU and Bruce Ledewitz, professor of law
    Duquesne University Law School.

  • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

    I stand corrected: Assistant Secretary of State.

    I am not surprised, look how hard it has been to even get a court of competent jurisdiction to address this issue in our times. When you know, or should know, that Vattel settled the matter rather conclusively as a  natural inherited right of citizenship, following the father’s allegiance, as an aspect of natural law and natural rights over plenary authority.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BYJTZ4Q5GB36TEQ5B5FXTTVC7Y a

    Because there is no such thing as a 14th Amendment citizen.  The government lawyers understood that if Wong was held to a citizen at birth in the United States then he was “natural born”.  That is their understanding of the law.

    Justice Fuller in his dissent said essentially the same thing.  He said the majority opinion was that Engish Common Law ‘governed” the menaing of the terms “citizen of the United States” and “natural born Citizen”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BYJTZ4Q5GB36TEQ5B5FXTTVC7Y a

    “The confusion is caused by attorneys and so called experts who are convinced that the term natural born Citizen in Article II is an undefined term in the Constitution that is wanting for a definition.”

    Alexander Hamilton told us where to look for the definition of terms in the Constitution.  In a 1795 legal brief about carriage taxes (direct or indirect taxes), he starts by saying,

    “What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes ? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.”

    And he finished his brief by saying,

    “where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

    That’s where we look for the meaning of terms in the Constitution – the English Legal System.

  • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

    “a”

    There are only two types of “rights”, natural rights which are inherited and legal rights which are a grant of a privilege from governments statutory authority.  So the rights of citizenship comes in two forms: a natural inherited right and a legal right.  The legal form of citizenship is not a natural inherited right, but is an artificially created legal right privilege called “naturalized” citizen that is granted by government. 

    Do you follow me so far?

    Therefore, Article II qualifications are such that only those who can claim a natural inherited right to membership in the society can qualify, hence “natural born” as a qualifier on the type of citizenship required. This is meant to convey that those who must rely on the statutory authority of government to claim their citizenship as a legal privilege do not qualify for the office of President. This is meant to deny Congress the ability to create the office of President to be a legal privilege that Congress can grant to their buddies and thus create a monarchy form of government and disenfranchise the People from their natural sovereign authority over the government. Right away this eliminates the soil jurisdiction from any relevancy because we do not inherit our natural claim to membership in the society from soil jurisdictions. The place of birth does not determine our natural right to make a claim to natural membership in the society that is governed by their soil jurisdiction. The soil is used solely by the government to extend artificial privileges just like the King did in the days of old under a monarchy. We retained that aspect of law, called “subject” status as in the king’s “subjects”, via the king’s soil dominion, in order to grant government the authority to extend legal political privileges like naturalized citizenship, via soil or the State’s jurisdiction.

    Do you see where I am going?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

    Precisely so. As I was saying: there are TWO kinds of rights: One is the kind of rights formed by government…the kind you just stated: the English Legal System. And then there is natural law, and inalienable rights; do you remember them from the Declaration of Independence?

    Inalienable rights are natural rights. That’s what makes them “inalienable.”  We have an inalienable right to inherit citizenship of the father as a natural right since citizenship, which is defined as the right of membership in the society, is a political right. 

    Plenary authority cannot create natural born citizens; it can only create naturalized citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BYJTZ4Q5GB36TEQ5B5FXTTVC7Y a

    Birth in the country makes one natural born.

    BTW have you read this:
     
    ENGLISH COMMON LAW: EMBODIMENT OF THE NATURAL LAW by PAUL MCWILLIAMS

  • ^TDO^

    http://memory.loc .gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

    Library of Congress.  Hamilton’s draft constitution.

    Take the space out before .gov.

    And start finding out things before you attack!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BYJTZ4Q5GB36TEQ5B5FXTTVC7Y a

    You really should take your own advice about finding out things.

    Go to your link and page back to page 619.  You will see the following notation:

    “The document that has just been
    discussed is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to
    the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinion of
    Hamilton.”

    The preceeding document is the draft plan Hamilton submitted to the Convention on June 18th, 1787.  The document you keep citing with the Presidential eligiblity clause was never submitted to the Convention.

    Don’t feel bad, you would be surprised at the number of people who have made this same mistake.

  • http://nolp.blogspot.com/ davidfarrar

    Plenary authority cannot create citizens that can be Presidents or Vice Presidents. Plenary authority cannot create natural born citizens; it can only create naturalized citizens. It does this via jus soli or via naturaliztion,

    Yes, even in English common law theory,  there is natural law and plenary authority. 

    As I pointed out with reference to the Queen of England. Even in the case where a female gets to be queen, she can only be queen as a function of a legal decree or legal right. Her right to be queen is not recognized as a natural inherited right like it is for the males, and is contrary to the natural order, which is why historically, females have not been accepted as queens and it has caused much warfare and political unrest in most cases, even in England, despite the few queens that England has had, most of them have occurred with much warfare and civil unrest.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • IceTrey

    You say jus soli is the sole requirement to be natural born. Yet it is a fact that 160 countries, including your beloved England, do not grant birthright citizenship to the children of non resident aliens. So how can those children be natural born citizens of these countries if they are not citizens at all? I’ll also ask again the question you never answered, what about children born to citizen parents outside the country? What about those born to one citizen and one foreigner outside the country?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JQGOP2CQPT767R357ZPSSL2JR4 John

    Marco Rubio’s parents were not even citizens when he was born, damn any sleep cell can come here, have a child then become President, the founders were much smarter than that? Rubio may be a good person, that is not in question, it’s the Constitution which needs to be followed.

  • 1972patriot

    This article is an inaccurate outlandish hit at Natural Born Citizens. As an American Indian who understands and cherishes my rights, I am deeply offended and frankly surprised that Human Events has stooped to such lows to promote an ineligible candidate as eligible for their own agenda. Chester Arthur a NBC…. puh-leez!

  • IceTrey

    There are two, natural born and naturalized. Then there are two types of naturalized, naturalized by decree (at birth) and naturalized by immigration.

  • dannyvice

    There is no difference between the term Citizen by birth and Natural born citizen. They are legally the same thing. Rubio was born in the US and therefore legally a natural born US citizen. Check out the Congressional Research Service. They defined it already. Rubio is legal

  • Don Cody

    Those who assert that Rubio is not eligible to become president are ignorant of what is required to become POTUS. Google says: ”
    Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.
    Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.” Case cosed

  • arcsinice

    The author, Mr. Zak states………., “How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either
    they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the
    first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural
    born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another
    country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is
    a naturalized citizen.”

    The term “natural born citizen” as per its original definition by Emmerich de Vattel through his magnum opus of The Law Of Nations completed in 1758 and most frequently if not endlessly consulted and referenced by sitting members of Congress in their draft of the U.S. Constitution as so remarked by Franklin himself states that a natural born citizen is, “An individual born within the nation whose parents are both citizens of the nation at the time of the individual’s birth.” In other words, the individual – a natural born citizen is one who – must be born within a given nation to parents (as in plural) who (both) are citizens at the time of the child’s birth.This codicil while not defined within the U.S. Constitution was known well to mean what it meant and was defined by de Vattel. The framers of the Constitution knew that for several decades no existing individual could qualify for either the presidency or vice presidency under their NBC clause as all presidential and vice presidential candidates (and their parents) were British citizens by birth until Martin Van Buren, born in 1782, or six years following the formal drawing of the Constitution could technically be proclaimed as the first president born in the United States as American citizen but not NBC. Since the full adoption did not take place until 1788, many feel that it was in fact John Tyler, born in 1790 who can claim that title of natural born citizen which is correct. Either way, the framers knew the simple exclusionary citizen provision on a limited time basis would allow for what would prove the first seven if not nine presidents in procession to simply be American citizens and not ultimately require full natural born citizen status until full adoption of the Constitution.

    Today, notwithstanding the 14th Amendment which solely speaks to citizenship only, not natural born citizen clause or meaning, many Americans believe that any American regardless of birth and parent citizenship qualify for NBC satus if they are either born within the United States (or a US Territory). Nothing could be further from the truth and with each individual who chooses to look the other way as per the NBC clause, the Constitution suffers.

    Marco Rubio, while fully qualified under the legal provisions to be a member of the Legislative Branch as he currently is, is not legally qualified to ever be president or vice president. Mr. Rubio, while born in the United States, specifically Miami, Florida in 1971 was the son of two Cuban national parents who, at the time of his birth in Miami were foreign nationals (legal aliens) and remained so for nearly five years following his birth. As a consequence of their foreign national (legal alien) status, legally within the United States on their CI visas, Mr. Rubio would be violating the provisions of qualification were he ever to run for either office within the Executive Branch.

  • savy60

    What bothers me, might be the two most important things about this discussion, is the legal question of who can become President, but also the safeguard of the allegiance the person has to the US. I would have never thought about this until I visited Peru. While Touring there, I was educated by a Peruvian citizen who told me the story of the President of Peru who was actually a Japanese citizen. He robed the country and then went back to Japan where he apparently became untouchable. We should never put our country in a situation where we do not have jurisdiction over our President. We don’t imagine these things happening, but they do in other countries. Remember when many people wanted Kissinger to run for President? It is a question that comes up more often than you think. Schwarzenegger wanted to change the law.

  • dusel1

    The author’s logic is null. Here’s why:

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Claus 2 reads:
    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a CITIZEN of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3 reads:
    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a CITIZEN of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 reads:
    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.

    Therefore, during the Founding of our United States of America nation, the original CITIZENS created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President by only being a CITIZEN. Their future generations of people would be the NATURAL BORN CITIZENS who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.

    Subsequently, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. CITIZEN) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. CITIZENS or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. CITIZEN to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    All US presidents not grandfathered at the time of the implementation of the US Constitution were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, except Chester A. Arthur and Barry Soetoro (alias Barack Hussein Obama II).

    Barry Soetoro does not meet the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because he only has one CITIZEN parent, provided that he was born in the United States of America. Barry Soetoro has been usurping the office of the president of the United States of America since January 20, 2009. He is an impostor and in violation of the US Constitution, Article II.

    Using the author’s reasoning, an anchor baby could become President. Chief Justice John Jay would roll over in his grave.

  • dusel1

    Which alien planet did you come from?

  • dusel1

    The Congressional Research Service is funded by George Soros – Commie A1.

  • dusel1

    Ridiculous, but true.

  • dusel1

    You’re on LSD.

  • dusel1

    Grandfathered In. The rest (future) must be Natural Born.

  • dusel1

    Someone failed to do a background check of Chester – he ‘got away with it’ same same your terminal liar and usurper in-chief Barry.

  • Don T.

    It’s impossible to argue with the purposefully ignorant. Consider that
    the Constitutional Rules of Construction say that there are no
    redundancies in the original, unamended Constitution. Since Citizen,
    Naturalized Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are all in the original,
    unamended constitution, NONE can be equal. If born here = citizen, born
    here natural born citizen. It MUST, by CONSTRUCTION, be
    something else. It must be “born here + some additional qualifier.” At
    the time of the Constitution’s writing, natives, or natural born
    citizens, were accepted as “children born to citizen parents.” Obama
    was a dual citizen at birth, and therefore NOT natural born, nor is
    Rubio natural born. Wong Kim Ark says “born here” equals citizen,
    therefore “born here” (jus soli) is not Natural Born, because they CANNOT be the
    same thing. Chew on that, Zak! How do you like something that is
    IMPOSSIBLE to argue with? Because that’s what I gave you. Any attempt
    at saying I’m wrong, is wrong. Because what I said is FACT!

  • vrajavala

    Supreme Court gave legally binding definition of Natural born citizen as one born of TWO American parents, born on American soil. Minor v. Happersett (1875) http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

    A high standard, yet one that our first Chief Justice John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

    “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 Commander
    in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any
    but a natural born Citizen. ”

    The CIC must not have a quiver of an emotional attachment towards any foreign country

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004291620482 Maria Hernandez

    VIVA RUBIO 2016!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/sfcneal Neal Martin

    a wealth of misinformation like this is what has our country in trouble now. A natural born citizen is a 2nd generation citizen who has 2 parents who were American Citizens at the time of birth. Rubio is not, therefore, a natural born american citizen and cannot serve as president unless our congress continues to ignore the constitution of the Unite States of America. A FELONY

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Wise/1260057456 Michael Wise

    People need to stop referencing Blackstone, and look into Vettel. The US Supreme Court has also spoken of the “birthers” definition throughout the years. As well, the Supreme Court has misquoted even the 14th Amendment. The ones whopassed it, said their interpretation was wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1473135686 Patrick Castronovo

    RUBIO 2016!!!

  • tony ward

    Rubio is an establishment Republican. The Republicans will run him as a dead horse to put the Democrats back in.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tusense Judy Casey Blye

    As far a Marc Rubio being natural born citizen it DOES matter about his parents. His parents have to be citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Both parents have to be citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. This is what the problem is with our current usurper or president impostor in the White House, he father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth. The reason it is so important is our founding fathers did not want a president that grew up with dual loyalties. And we can all see how that is working out?

  • http://www.facebook.com/pat.mojarro Pat Mojarro

    So if all this is true why are some picking on Obama who has an American mother and African father.

  • Chuck

    Michael there is actually a Supreme Court Decision concerning this topic from 1875. This decision defines what is a natural born citizen. Both parents must be citizens but not necessarily natural born citizens. Its difficult reading but worth it !!!

  • beckncall

    No he’s not. LIsten to Dr. Herb Titus explain why. http://www.herbtitus.com

  • RobertLaity

    Zak, Go sell cars. You don’t know the Law.
    A Natural Born Citizen is “One Born ON U.S. Soil…” (Jus Soli) IN ADDITION TO being born “OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS”. (Jus Sanquinis)
    This was affirmed in Minor v Happersett.
    Obama,Cruz,Rubio,Jindahl,Swartzenneger,and even Romney ALL are DQ’d for not meeting the NBC definition. Chester Arthur was NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. Our corrupt Congress has tried over five times in the past several years to legislate away the NBC requirement and they have failed. They KNOW what an NBC is. Currently,the requirement puts a damper on bi-partisan efforts to introduce foreign influence into OUR sovereign nation. Both Bushes (Republicans) Obama ,Biden and the Clintons (Democrats) have ALL supported Global Governance “The New World Order”.

  • RobertLaity

    Matthew, You are 100% correct.

  • RobertLaity

    Obama is a NO “term POTUS”. Obama has never BEEN the bona-fides POTUS/CIC. Obama has never held the office legally. He has usurped the Presidency by fraud during a “Time of War”. That makes Obama a SPY under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice at Section 906,Article 106. The penalty for being a Spy,if convicted, is death.

    Obama is subject to Court Martial.

    Obama is also a Traitor under U.S. Law. See: 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381.

  • RobertLaity

    I second that.

  • RobertLaity

    “USPOTUS”= Usurper,Spy “President” Of The United States.

  • RobertLaity

    You are Obtuse.

  • RobertLaity

    Yes. BOTH Parents of a VP or President MUST be either NBCs themselves or who were Naturalized Americans AT the time of birth of their child ON U.S. Soil. Rubio’s Parents were STILL Cubans when he was born. They naturalized AFTER Rubio was born. Rubio IS DQ’d.

  • RobertLaity

    The CRS paper is deficient. It was either done purposely in order to justify Obama and McCain or the CRS is simply ignorant of the Law.

  • RobertLaity

    The CRS paper lacks credence and foundation.

  • RobertLaity

    I was not alive when Arthur usurped the Presidency. I sure enough am alive now. I will be damned if I don’t defend my nation from a usurper who has taken the Office of OUR Presidency by fraud during MY watch. Did you know that Arthur forced is staff to salute the Union Jack every morning.,a flag he raised ON the White House lawn.?

    Did you know also that Obama trumped this by having raised the Communist Chinese flag on the South WH Lawn to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. This was an illegal act insofar as the Chinese Head of State was NOWHERE to be found.

  • RobertLaity

    Give it up Mike, You are wrong. Arthur was a Usurper as is Obama. “Ridiculous”? NO! It IS the Law. If you want it changed it must be by Amendment.

  • RobertLaity

    Zak is obtuse.

  • RobertLaity

    Arthur’s fraud was found out only after he died. Study your history. Arthur,like Obama pawned himself off as eligible when he was NOT. Obama was facilitated by Nancy Pelosi who committed fraud by certifying Obama as a Constitutionally qualified candidate. In 2008 she also created a ruckus during the counting of the Electoral college votes diverting Cheney,at the precise moment, from asking the Constitutionally required question “are there any objections”? Several people HAD Objections but the Question was never asked. No opportunity to voice said objections to the tally was provided.

  • RobertLaity

    Arthur WAS Disqualified. He was NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. Chester Arthur was born in 1829 to William Arthur,a British Father who was NOT Naturaliized UNTIL Chester Arthur was fourteen years old. Chester was born with dual British Citizenship as was Obama. NOTE: IT is incontrovertible fact that the Founders did NOT want British Subjects to be OUR President.

  • RobertLaity

    Obama belongs in the Brig. He has never been the Bona-fide POTUS. There is NO “President” Obama: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama/
    See also: “El Usurpator”

  • RobertLaity

    Don’t you think it strange that BOTH Parties are proffering candidates that are overtly disqualified constitutionally? Obama and McCain in 2008 and Obama and Romney in 2012. ALL Three have Citizenship status problems. Obama is DQ’d. McCain was born outside the U.S. on Panamanian soil and Romney’s Father was born in Mexico.

  • RobertLaity

    Love of Country,alone, is not sufficient to be POTUS. Fact is what we want are 100% Americans to run OUR nation.

  • RobertLaity

    Rawle’s “Writings” are NOT Controlling. The Constitution is. Rawle is as misinformed as Zak. Anchor babies cannot be President.

  • RobertLaity

    Both the term “Natural-Born Citizen” and the “Law of Nations” are IN there now. That is the standard that MUST be met to be POTUS.

  • RobertLaity

    Rawle was apparently as obtuse as Zak.

  • RobertLaity

    There is nothing ridiculous about stating that Arthur was DQ’d. It IS “True.

  • RobertLaity

    ONLY bases on U.S. Soil are “U.S. Soil”. Bases in foreign lands are NOT considered U.S. Soil. See the Naturalization Act. Children of American Parents born overseas are NOT Natural-Born Americans. They must be naturalized.

  • RobertLaity

    Arthur died before he was discovered to be a fraud. We KNOW Obama is a fraud now.

  • RobertLaity

    The Law of Nations which has been proven to have been a reference used ubiquitously in both English and U.S. Courts in the 18th Century provides that one’s citizenship devolves from the FATHER and not the Mother. That his biological father was NOT an American, Fremon did NOT meet 100% American Jus Sanquinis. Fremon knew who his father was. That his father and mother were not married is irrelevant since BOTH Parents MUST be Americans. Fremon had French Sanquinis. That was a known fact that disqualified him. Obama’s Mother was American. However,his Father was a British Subject. Obama and Stanley were not married legally since Sr. was already Married in Kenya.However,again,that Obama and Fremon were/are both Bastards is irrelevant. Obama lacks 100% American Jus Sanquinis as did Fremon.

  • RobertLaity

    You are correct. Citizenship devolves from the Father. However, that does not change the fact that BOTH Parents must be Americans and that Child must be born on U.S. Soil for their Child to be a Natural-Born American.

  • RobertLaity

    Obama has usurped the Presidency during time of war. That is a capital offense under the UCMJ at Section 906 Article 106. It makes Obama a SPY.

  • David Farrar

    You are guessing that Obama Sr. didn’t marry Obama Jr. mother. The fact of the matter is, Obama’s mother did get a legal divorce from Obama Sr. Unless proven otherwise, we must assume she was legally married to Obama Sr.

    The same was not true of John Fremon. In Fremon’s case, there is no question that he was conceived out of wedlock. In such cases, the allegiance of the mother prevails. Therefor: John Fremon nomination
    for the vice-presidency was perfectly consistent with de Vattle’s “Laws of Nations” and natural law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Paul D. Conley

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled otherwise over the last 120 years!
    Minor v. Happersett
    100 U.S. 1
    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 [p168] 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.

    Supreme Court: Throughout U.S. history, various individuals
    have expressed their personal opinion that all children born on U.S.
    soil (except the children of foreign ambassadors and alien enemies) are
    natural born citizens, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. But the
    Supreme Court has never embraced this viewpoint, and on several
    occasions, has made decisions contrary to it.

    In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins
    (1884), the plaintiff was born in the United States, of a father owing
    allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In each case,
    the Court determined that the plaintiff did not acquire U.S. citizenship
    at birth: his nationality at the time of birth was that of his father,
    not his birthplace [32].

    In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
    (1898), the Supreme Court — in an apparent departure from prior
    precedent — ruled that children born in the United States, of
    permanently-domiciled alien parents, are U.S. citizens. But, to this day, the Supreme Court has never ruled that such children are natural born citizens. On the contrary, our nation’s highest court, in its majority opinions, has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.

    In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel’s concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection), the viewpoint that:

    “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens” (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)

    In Minor v. Happersett
    (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first
    class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen
    parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children,
    regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term
    “natural born citizen” only in reference to the first class. Regarding
    members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.
    In the Court’s opinion, natural born citizens are “distinguished from”
    aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone
    who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen) at birth [05].

    In Kwock Jan Fat v. White
    (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born
    citizen. He was born in the United States. His father was a native-born
    U.S. citizen; and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [99].

    In Perkins v. Elg
    (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural
    born citizen. She was born in the United States. When she was born, her
    father was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S.
    citizen by marriage.

    To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has
    referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual
    was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The
    Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

  • Layni Shepherd

    Complete rubbish. What You and most people fail to understand is that YOU are not an arbiter of the Constitution. The only people that get to decide what is and what is not constitution are the Supreme Court Justices. Many will argue Roe v Wade is bad law and no such rights are conferred under the 14th amendment, many will argue that the second does not cover the right to bear arms. However that is all irrelevant, as the original authors are not alive, we have given jurisdiction to the law to the Supreme court. We are governed by the Rule of law. Our constitution has granted that President Obama is a natural born citizen, despite what you may think, just like all those that have come before this argument before, what you or I may think, is totally irrelevant about what natural actually means. Your view is only as important as mine, but until we become justices to make a decision on it, its all opinion. In my opinion the author is 100 percent correct, because history has proven out, and no supreme court ruling was ever made to challenge the eligibility of past mentioned presidents. Lack thereof evidence, the Law is simply the Law.. opinion is left for the coffee houses and the mentally insane.

  • Layni Shepherd

    No one can re write the constitution you fool, there is an agreed method for making an amendment. Stop writing jibberish .

  • aleddie1

    Oh, you woke up today and found my comment from April 2012 and the only argument have is insulting me. Typical liberal. Haven’t you seen the pResident violating constantly the Constitution? A few examples: making recess appointments while Congress is NOT in recess or choosing what part of a law is convenient to apply and what not, like Obamacare, postponing some of its parts to please his political convenience. I wait you will answer this next year with several insults and not any original idea. Have a happy new year.

  • Charles Slakan

    He followed it, he was born in Hawaii.
    From the real world Hawaii is a state in the USA.

  • Charles Slakan

    Anyone born in any state in the USA other than an ambassadors’ child or someone here on a green card or vis is a born American.
    All our founders up to the founding of the Constitution, the most liberal form of government Ever in the worlds history were foreigners.
    They were English subjects of George III.
    mccain would not have been eligible when he was born the territory was unincorporated, an act of congress, yes, tgat means naturalization, made him and oyhers like him citizens several years after he was born!
    Yet he had no problem running, neither will Canadian born Senator grandpa munster who was still a Canadian citizen as recently as early in 2014.