Natural Born Citizen Status Inherited Via Father #tcot #tpot

 

snip parent patriot pollMario Apuzzo Esq has written extensively on the Natural Born Citizen requirement for presidential eligibility, and I have posted previously that I generally agree with him and applaud his research.  However, I also have posted disagreement with his conclusion that both parents must be US citizens.  I have based my disagreement primarily on the fact that requiring both parents to be of the same citizenship means that some individuals will not be NBC of any country, a result that does not seem to be at all viable for a natural law concept.  Though I have not studied this issue to the degree Mr Apuzzo has, I did read his article on this subject and you can see my added highlights and comments here, refuting his conclusions point-by-point to the extent we differ: http://lawnews.tv/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Apuzzo-on-Natural-Born-Citizen-Both-Parents.pdf

As a practical matter, we both agree that Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all NOT eligible for the presidency.  I also agree with Mr Apuzzo that Santorum IS eligible for the presidency.  However, I disagree with his underlying analysis regardless of what later court cases say as they are not on point and even if they were cannot vary the Constitution or the essential requirement under natural law that every individual must be NBC of one and only one country, a mandatory requirement if the clause is to be interpreted in a way consistent with its obvious purpose of ensuring sole allegiance.

In case my added comments are not visible in your pdf viewer, here is a summary taken from an email i sent to Mr. Apuzzo:

You seem to have correctly stated the Court’s view.

I’m just pointing out the logical inconsistency in taking a natural law concept and defining it in a way that leaves some without a country.

We agree completely as to result and I agree with much of your response; however, you do not at all respond to my contention that it is possible (and I think much more reasonable) to read Vattel as requiring only one parent (specifically, the father) as US citizen.

The most thorough research I’ve written on this consists of “post it” comments I added electronically to your article in Adobe.  I just realized those comments might not be visible without Adobe so here are some of my comments:

Vattel writes (very generally): “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

My comment: Not talking about single family here, but society–parents is plural because natives is plural.  If Vattel was referring to one family, he would have written “both parents.”

[The plural form may also have something to do with French grammar. Also, I just noticed that in my responses I failed to point out an error in your article in which you state that English translators of Vattel’s treatise replaced the words”natural born Citizen” for the words “natives or indigenes.” In fact, the phrase is not singular, whether “natural born citizens” or the original French (“Les naturels, ou indigenes”), and this fact supports my comment.]

Vattel writes: in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen

My comment: Vattel cannot be any clearer on this point.

You write: If he required only one parent such as the father, he would have said “of fathers who are citizens” and not “of parents who are citizens.”

My comment: Fathers are “parents” are they not?

You write: He did later refer to “fathers,” but only because wives automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands the same way children did.

My comment: This point merely strengthens case that NBC inherited via father only. Don’t understand Apuzzo’s conclusion that reference to “fathers” was “only” because of automatic nature of wives’ citizenship. That fact only indicates to me their citizenship is irrelevant for NBC status, especially if “automatically acquired … the same way children did.”

You write: if Vattel meant to focus only on “fathers,” he would have used “fathers” throughout his definition and never mentioned “parents” when he first defined “natural born Citizen,” for there would not have been any need to use the word “parents” when “fathers” would have sufficed.

My comment: But he DID use “fathers” later in the paragraph. If he were writing about blue cars, but initially referred to them as merely cars, does that render ineffective a further specification appearing later in the same paragraph? No, of course not.

You write: noteworthy that Vattel had no problem allowing the child to inherit the citizenship of the mother when the mother was not married to the child’s father.

My comment: This is merely a necessary exception from the general rule.

You write: Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

My comment: This conclusory statement, based on faulty logic, is certainly not a “given” but interestingly, does reveal the apparent (no pun intended) reason for Apuzzo’s results-driven analysis: concern over the Equal Protection Clause. Yet as a natural law concept, why should EP have any bearing?  How can Congress, or the People for that matter, change a reference to blue cars to a reference to pink/blue pinstriped cars?  Is EP at all relevant for presidential eligibility?  Even if it is, is EP analysis even a real threat here? Women as a class are not harmed any more than the parents whose children have NO NBC country under the “both parents” analysis. Really, the only person harmed is the kid that cannot run, and that kid may be male or female under both methods.

I could go on with other comments but don’t have time to reproduce all those here—just wanted to provide a few in case you could not read the comments in the linked document.  I will attach here in both word and pdf.  Nowhere does Vattel expressly say that “both parents” are required to be citizens and for that notion, juridically, you rely on none other than the infamous Dred Scott case, one of two greatest instances of Supreme Court folly.

Mr Apuzzo’s original article is located here.

elian cruz

#GlennBeck Lying on Behalf of #TedCruz? Says on Air Both Parents Were US Citizens at Birth #tcot

On the way to the office this morning, listening to Glenn Beck as I normally do, I heard some propaganda so vile I decided to post about it.  I am a big fan of Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, listen to both of them quite a bit and agree with them mostly, but also expect too much perhaps and occasionally what they say makes me angry enough to post something here on this blog.  Recently, I responded to Levin’s shoddy conclusion that Cruz is a natural born citizen, as that phrase must be interpreted under the constitution, and his name-calling of those who disagree with him.

This morning, Glenn Beck surpassed Levin’s shoddiness and also engaged in name-calling of those who believe Cruz is not eligible.  In playing clips of “The View” where those hosts brought up that Ted Cruz was born in Canada (a total red herring and straw man because place of birth is not relevant to the question of whether one is a “natural born citizen” in the constitutional sense; only citizenship of the father at birth is relevant to that question), Beck proceeded to make fun of these hosts (okay fine, they are fools) but then Beck makes the statement on air (and I paraphrase since I caught it driving in):

“Every constitutional scholar agrees that if a person is born abroad and both parents are US citizens at time of birth, that person is eligible to run for president.”

I don’t have any problem with that statement, on its face.  [Mario Apuzzo, Esq., a scholar on natural born citizenship whom I respect, would also require birth in US in addition to both parents being US citizens at time of the birth.  However, I disagree that place of birth is at all relevant because if you accept that the Founders adopted the natural law view that each individual is natural born citizen (NBC) of one and only one country, then you must also take the traditional view that NBC is inherited (your children don’t become subjects of another country simply because you are traveling), and such inheritance must come through one parent only because parents may have differing citizenship and a “both parents” rule would result in some children not being considered NBC of ANY country–an obviously ludicrous result inconsistent with natural law.  Traditionally, it has always been the father’s citizenship that was inherited.  (There are good reasons for this–for example, it is mainly fathers that fight.  BTW, did you know that Ted’s father fought to put Fidel Castro in power?)  At time of the founding, wife’s citizenship generally followed that of the husband’s.  As distasteful as it may be in our politically correct age, you have to pick one or the other or the entire natural law view of the clause, as originally intended, is meaningless.]

What really bothers me about Glenn Beck’s statement is the LOUDLY IMPLIED assertion that both of Ted Cruz’ parents were US citizens at time of Ted’s birth–which is PALPABLY FALSE!  Ted Cruz’ father was a Cuban citizen at that time, and in fact never became a US citizen until just a few years ago.  GLENN BECK NEVER POINTED THIS OUT.  Ted Cruz himself was a dual citizen of both US and Canada until he recently renounced his Canadian citizenship (acquired by reason of his birth in Canada) less than a year ago.  Did the Founders intend dual citizens to be eligible?  I think not!  Is the concern of the Founders remedied by simply filling out a renunciation form?  I think not!  The Founders insisted that a president be a NATURAL born citizen under natural law principles because you can only be NBC of one and only one country.

Look, Ted Cruz is an exciting candidate, a true patriot, and more Reaganesque than Reagan himself.  I would have a hard time not voting for him if he wins the nomination even though he is not NBC because the alternative would be electing a Democrat and all the unnatural ACTS that implies.

My concern is that enough of the grassroots will be concerned about the NBC issue that it will weaken grassroots support for Cruz perhaps even more than the grassroots were weakened by nomination of moderate Romney.  Nor can we expect the Left to ignore the issue (even if their understanding of it is imperfect as with “The View”).

A bit later in the broadcast, as I pulled in to my parking lot, Beck commented that the Nazis through Goebbels learned about propaganda from the US.  Goebbels would be proud of what conservative commentators such as Beck and Levin are doing on behalf of Cruz.

Chilean Pres’ “Empty Chair” Prank Shows Why Ted Cruz Cannot Run

““I’m going to sit at the president of the United States’ desk,” Chilean President Sebastian Pinera first announced in Spanish. Then, just like that, he walked around and plunked himself down. In an apparent effort to justify his action, Pinera said one of his daughters was born in the United States.”

So, could his daughter run for the US Presidency simply because she was born in the US? No, the Constitution requires more in the phrase “natural born citizen” for those wanting to run. The traditional rule of “jus sanguinis” is what the Founders had in mind–the father must have been a US citizen.

Ted Cruz says he is eligible to run for the US presidency. He is a great conservative Senator, but he is wrong on this. He was born in Canada to an American mother, but his father was a Cuban citizen. In fact, his father helped Castro initially and never bothered to become American until recently.

Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” according to our founding documents.