Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

[barryqwalsh]

The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens” was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,” as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.

Odd, considering the fact that so many of those who helped craft the “natural born citizen” clause were themselves born in foreign lands: Alexander Hamilton in the West Indies; James Wilson in Scotland; Robert Morris in England; and the four delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who hailed from Ireland, William Paterson, James McHenry, Pierce Butler and Thomas Fitzsimons.

No worries. Before they finished their business the drafters exempted themselves, and most of their generation from the requirement they felt so crucial.


Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

 

[Auld Phart]

The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens” was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,” as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.

Odd, considering the fact that so many of those who helped craft the “natural born citizen” clause were themselves born in foreign lands: Alexander Hamilton in the West Indies; James Wilson in Scotland; Robert Morris in England; and the four delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who hailed from Ireland, William Paterson, James McHenry, Pierce Butler and Thomas Fitzsimons.

No worries. Before they finished their business the drafters exempted themselves, and most of their generation from the requirement they felt so crucial.


Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

8 of the first 9 presidents were not born in the United States.

Martin Van Buren was the first president born in the "United States"

 

[JakeStarkey]

7 = Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson and #8 was Van Buren.

 

[Auld Phart]

William Henry Harrison
February 9, 1773 – April 4, 1841

 

[jwoodie]

They were concerned about a future President trying to reunite with Great Britain.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

They were concerned about a future President trying to reunite with Great Britain.

or taking sides with an aggressor because they are his home country, for instance, terrorists that hate the United States

 

[JakeStarkey]

They were concerned about a future President trying to reunite with Great Britain.

or taking sides with an aggressor because they are his home country, for instance, terrorists that hate the United States

We are fortunate that has never, even remotely, happened.

 

[regent]

There is a good chance the Supreme Court will not hear any case on a candidate not being a natural born citizen, and the Court declaring it to be a political question not a judicial one, Has any Court decided on a similar case?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Odd, considering the fact that so many of those who helped craft the “natural born citizen” clause were themselves born in foreign lands'

Not odd at all – England, Scotland, Ireland, and British colonial entities in North America were all subject to the Crown, and consequently not perceived by Colonial Americans as 'foreign.'

And during the 18th Century the term 'natural born citizen' referred to a natural allegiance to the state, not necessarily someone born in the United States.

 

[jillian]

There is a good chance the Supreme Court will not hear any case on a candidate not being a natural born citizen, and the Court declaring it to be a political question not a judicial one, Has any Court decided on a similar case?

that isn't a political question.

 

[regent]

There is a good chance the Supreme Court will not hear any case on a candidate not being a natural born citizen, and the Court declaring it to be a political question not a judicial one, Has any Court decided on a similar case?

that isn't a political question.

The Court decides that.

 

[Agit8r]

There is a good chance the Supreme Court will not hear any case on a candidate not being a natural born citizen, and the Court declaring it to be a political question not a judicial one, Has any Court decided on a similar case?

that isn't a political question.

The Court decides that.

Unless it's a 4-4 tie...

 

[jillian]

There is a good chance the Supreme Court will not hear any case on a candidate not being a natural born citizen, and the Court declaring it to be a political question not a judicial one, Has any Court decided on a similar case?

that isn't a political question.

The Court decides that.

Unless it's a 4-4 tie...

then the circuit court decision stays in effect. (since the case doesn't go straight to the Supremes)

Jurisdiction.

According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court

 

[Muhammed]

The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens” was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,” as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.

Odd, considering the fact that so many of those who helped craft the “natural born citizen” clause were themselves born in foreign lands: Alexander Hamilton in the West Indies; James Wilson in Scotland; Robert Morris in England; and the four delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who hailed from Ireland, William Paterson, James McHenry, Pierce Butler and Thomas Fitzsimons.

No worries. Before they finished their business the drafters exempted themselves, and most of their generation from the requirement they felt so crucial.


Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

Nothing odd about it at all.

If they didn't exempt people who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, NOBODY would have been eligible to be POTUS.

Malinda Seymore is an idiot.

 

[Holos]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about "natural born citizenship", and much less does the Declaration of Indepence have anything to do with that, but just to the contrary, it would defend immigrants to become protected from "natural born" tyranny and false forced obligation.

Senators need a minimum of 9 years as citizens to exercise their function, AND CANNOT be inhabitants of the state they represent. One of the senate's function is to choose the President. There is no requirement for the President, except for being chosen by the senate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The loons are just looning, nothing more.

 

[Holos]

The loons are just looning, nothing more.

My question did not refer to the nature of this assembly. My question was referring to the purpose of the here concerned assembly as being far from its nature.

 

[Skylar]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about "natural born citizenship", and much less does the Declaration of Indepence have anything to do with that, but just to the contrary, it would defend immigrants to become protected from "natural born" tyranny and false forced obligation.

Senators need a minimum of 9 years as citizens to exercise their function, AND CANNOT be inhabitants of the state they represent. One of the senate's function is to choose the President. There is no requirement for the President, except for being chosen by the senate.

I think you may have misunderstood them.

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.

The wording is a little alliterative, but they're using a double negative. No person who is not, and the like.

If your interpretation were correct, then anyone over 30 couldn't be a senator. As they use the same 'not have attained the age of third Years' language with the age requirement that they did with 'who shall not be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

And obviously, that's not the case.

 

[Skylar]

The loons are just looning, nothing more.

My question did not refer to the nature of this assembly. My question was referring to the purpose of the here concerned assembly as being far from its nature.

Read the debates in the 1st Congress when discussing the Nationality Act of 1790. They go on in detail about loyalty, allegiance, oaths, etc that help give you a window into their concerns.

 

[Holos]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about "natural born citizenship", and much less does the Declaration of Indepence have anything to do with that, but just to the contrary, it would defend immigrants to become protected from "natural born" tyranny and false forced obligation.

Senators need a minimum of 9 years as citizens to exercise their function, AND CANNOT be inhabitants of the state they represent. One of the senate's function is to choose the President. There is no requirement for the President, except for being chosen by the senate.

I think you may have misunderstood them.

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.

The wording is a little alliterative, but they're using a double negative. No person who is not, and the like.

If your interpretation were correct, then anyone over 30 couldn't be a senator. As they use the same 'not have attained the age of third Years' language with the age requirement that they did with 'who shall not be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

And obviously, that's not the case.

You are right about my mistake.

I would like, however, to use this opportunity to emphasize how interpretation does not pertain only to the grammar within a given context but also to its syntax, which is what I believe to be largely absent from general analysis of the Constitution (or any other form of literature or historical documentation).

How, for instance, would the quoted paragragh (and the entire rest of Article I) assist us in understanding what "natural born Citizen" or "Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution" means? Perhaps we do have to look further than the Constitution itself, but perhaps not. There are few documents or people as authorative as the Constitution itself when defending natural citizens of the United States, after all.