If you can't be president until you are 35, you shouldn't be able to vote for president until you are 35

 

Phyllis Schlafly correctly understood natural born citizenship to turn on the question of jurisdiction

Here is Schlafly in 2004:

The extensive litigation concerning American Indians illustrates that consent rather than place of birth is what controls citizenship. Indians did not receive citizenship until conferred by congressional acts in 1887, 1901 and 1924, long after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution states that "no person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be President. Everyone recognizes that this provision disqualifies the Governors of California and Michigan who were born in Austria and Canada, respectively.

On the other hand, then Michigan Governor George Romney, whose birthplace was Mexico, ran for president in 1968, and Senator John McCain, whose birthplace was the Panama Canal Zone, ran for president in 2000. Both were "natural born citizens" because their parents were U.S. citizens and subject to the jurisdiction of American sovereignty.

It's not the physical location of birth that defines citizenship, but whether your parents are citizens, and the express or implied consent to jurisdiction of the sovereign.

Looks like Obama was a natural born citizen of Kenya after all, according to his half brother

Here and here.

Does this mean that the last eight years are invalidated?

Or did Obama just use this to get cheap tuition as a "foreign" student?

Remember, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your healthcare plan, the ocean levels have begun to recede, our planet is beginning to heal and we are the ones we have been waiting for!

And, to quote Howard Dean, "Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

Joe Pags thinks "not in the labor force" does not include the retired, but it does

It's shocking how many people still think, wrongly, that "not in the labor force" includes huge numbers of people who could be or should be working but aren't.

Today on his show Joe Pags said the number not in the labor force, currently over 94 million, does not include retired people, when, for example in 2014 the retired constituted 44% of those "not in the labor force". The truth is the retired always constitute the single largest proportion of those "not in the labor force".

The sick and disabled in 2014 accounted for almost 19%, and people going to school made up another 18% of the total "not in the labor force". Tell me there are some claiming disability who don't have one who should be working, but don't tell me the damn kids should be working. 15.5% were homemakers while 3.5% had other reasons. There's probably many people in these categories who might want a job but can't find one, or ought to be working but aren't, but nothing even remotely close to the almost 39 million retired at the time.

Joe Pags joins a long list of idiots who are quite outspoken in their ignorance about this, including Zero Hedge, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, et alia. Thinking there might be vast numbers of hidden unemployed in "not in the labor force" is just plain lazy stupid.

None of these apparently have had the slightest interest in checking this out on Al Gore's amazing internet using the google machine, which takes you to this page at the Bureau of Labor Statistics with one of the better explanations out there.

I can only conclude the ignorance in the case of Joe Pags is willful because Joe Pags is smarter than that. But then again, he thinks Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

His bad.

Governor Nikki Haley, not a natural born citizen who took down the Confederate flag, endorses not a natural born citizen Marco Rubio for president

Or: anchor baby endorses anchor baby, which won't fly.

From another story here:

Haley’s parents moved to South Carolina in 1969; she was born in January 1972. In those days, it took at least five years to be naturalized.  So it’s evident Haley’s parents weren’t U.S. citizens at her birth.  Thus she is ineligible to the offices of president and vice-president.  For both, the Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, a deliberately higher standard than simple citizenship. ... Haley doesn’t make the cut. Neither do Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and nor did—yes—Barack Obama. My question for the future: was Columba Bush a U.S. citizen when George P. was born?

24% of Republicans not sure Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen, 12% sure he isn't, in latest Monmouth University poll

View the poll here.

The New York Times is only eight years late to the issue

"It May Be Time to Resolve the Meaning of ‘Natural Born’"

Cornered like a rat, Ted Cruz last night resorted to a straw man argument to defend his presidential eligibility

From the transcript here:

"At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on -- some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified."

No one is arguing that to be eligible both parents must have been born on US soil, only that both parents must be citizens at the time of the candidate's birth in a US jurisdiction.

The extreme non-existent standard propounded by Cruz isn't necessary to exclude him, Rubio and Jindal (and Obama), only the constitutional one which defines natural born citizenship as beyond the reach of statute. Cruz' citizenship is statutory, not constitutional, and that is why he is excluded from eligibility. He acquired citizenship through the law, not through the Constitution: 

'Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971). 

'That would make no sense if Cruz were a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." (There's an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn't that.)' 

  

Ann Coulter's Progress: Only constitutional illiterates confuse citizens and natural born citizens

Here:

'A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born." ... Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a "natural born citizen." This is constitutional illiteracy. "Natural born" is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an "active judge" in legal terminology.'

She seems, however, unaware that the 1790 Naturalization Act poses less of a problem for interpretation than she thinks, seeing that it was repealed by the Act of 1795, which scuttled the 1790 terminology "natural born".

Clearly the Congress had made an error in 1790, and realizing that making those born abroad natural born conflicted with the original intent of the constitution to restrict the designation to those born to citizens on US soil, Congress fixed it.

And this nugget Coulter pulls out is quite lovely in that regard:

"The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president." -- Schneider v. Rusk (1964)

Now if only we could get everyone to connect the dots.

Laurence Tribe thinks Ted Cruz is ineligible from one perspective, and buries "reputed born in the country" during the founding for a reason

Here in the Boston Globe:

'To his kind of judge, [Ted] Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive. ... This narrow definition reflected 18th-century fears of a tyrannical takeover of our nation by someone loyal to a foreign power — fears that no longer make sense.'

Oh really? They make more sense now than ever with the diffidently un-American Obama in the Oval, whom the originalist position should also have prevented but didn't precisely because liberal interpreters like Tribe have prevailed by burying truths.

Such as: Children born abroad to US diplomats and soldiers were considered at the time of the American founding "reputed born in the country". For example, Emer de Vattel, paragraphs 216ff., whom the founders used like a textbook:

"... it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. ... the children born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country."

So it's not just a simple matter of being born on US soil, otherwise every slave child ever born here would have been a natural born citizen, making that whole 14th Amendment thingy kind of beside the point. Tribe is taking only half of the originalist position and using it against Cruz, when there is another half, which should have made Obama ineligible.

Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen only in part because he was born in Canada without military, diplomatic or some other "official" American cover, but Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was born without citizen cover from both parents. Tribe wants to ignore the latter in the case of Cruz to obscure Obama's ineligibility and argue for the priority of soil against Cruz. It's the way liberals argue, by not telling the whole truth.

But blood was equally important with soil at the founding, and you might say that in the matter of presidential eligibility, the genius of the constitution was singularly expressed in the fusing of jus soli and jus sanguinis in the person elected to embody the executive power in order to protect it, and us.

Presidents should be born in the country, to (married heterosexual) citizens.

But good luck getting that through after what Obama and the Democrats have done to this country. Next stop, a test-tube president whose parents are a Chinese lesbian from Vancouver married to her kitty cat from a pet shelter in Seattle.

None of our early presidents were natural born citizens, but were grandfathered in by Article II

"Publius Huldah", here, correctly making the proper distinction between citizens, and natural born citizens who are eligible to be president:

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.

Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them ["or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"]. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States - not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

So! Do you see? If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.

Hey Levin you dummy! Citizens by statute are NOT natural born citizens!

If they were, they wouldn't need a statute making them citizens, dummkopf.

Donald Trump is a natural born citizen: His mother became a citizen four years before he was born

The Christian Science Monitor reported here last August:

'The couple had a son, Frederick, in New York City, in 1905. This was Donald Trump’s father. His birth in America, and subsequent automatic US citizenship, disproves rumors that The Donald is himself an “anchor baby” born to noncitizen US immigrants. ... In 1930, Fred Trump met a young Scot in New York on holiday, Mary MacLeod. They married in 1936. Born on the Isle of Lewis, Trump’s mother was proud of her Scottish heritage. Nevertheless, she became a US citizen on March 10, 1942.'

Rush Limbaugh, the big boob on the right, sides with those who say Cruz is a natural born citizen

Just now at the end of the half hour.

The caller who challenged Rush did a good job right up to the end of the call when he mistakenly agreed that Cruz was not a citizen.

Of course, what he meant to say was Cruz was a citizen, just not a natural born citizen, and Rush jumped all over the guy and bulled his way through to maintain his position against the caller's.

Too bad, because the caller was right and Rush was . . . 

Congress corrected itself in 1795 dropping "natural born citizens" of children born abroad to citizens

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

-- Naturalization Act of 1790

"[T]he children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

-- Naturalization Act of 1795

Katyal and Clement are completely disingenuous by ignoring the correction in their discussion last March because they know full well that the Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790.

h/t Mario Apuzzo, here:

'The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."  This is even more a blatant omission given that they argue that the English naturalization statutes referred to persons born out of the King's dominion to British subject parents as "natural born subjects."  They fail to address this critical change made by our early Congress, critical because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a “Citizen” of the United States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that thereafter only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible.'

How bad could it be if the leader of your country wasn't natural born to it?

Well, he could be a natural born Austrian, for example.

Randy Barnett in WaPo completely ignores the distinction between citizens and natural born citizens in Article II

Randy Barnett here.

Instead he gives us another one of those forays into individualism for which libertarians are infamous for their obscurantism. That he had to correct his post to acknowledge state constitutions used "natural born" shows that he has hardly looked into the matter adequately:

'UPDATE: My post erroneously stated that the phrase “natural born citizen” was devised by the framers of the Constitution, when in fact it had been previously used in state constitutions after the founding of the United States.  See, for example, here. Although this does not affect the substance of my point about how the change from “subject” to “citizen” results from a shift from monarchical to popular sovereignty at the founding, I do regret the error (now corrected), which was based on my misrecollection of an article on the subject.'

Mark Levin is behind the 8-ball on "natural born citizen"

Mark Levin tonight doesn't want to entertain if Ted Cruz is ineligible for the presidency because Ted's not a natural born citizen. To Levin the matter was never in question: "it is a settled constitutional and statutory matter." As far as Levin is concerned, Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Like hell.

Levin must consider that his position must mean that Article II is being superfluous when it makes a distinction between natural born citizen and citizen:

"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."

As John Marshall, I believe, said, none of the language of the constitution can be considered superfluous. Or as Newt Gingrich once observed, even the commas carry meaning.

The main phrase is "No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President".

Subordinate to this is the clause "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". This clause was for the practical reason having to do with the start-up of the new nation. To wit: the founders knew that many of themselves would run for the presidency to guide the young American republic, and would need to, but that none of themselves were "natural born" citizens. They were citizens, as is Ted Cruz, but not "natural born". The language of Article II was specifically designed to permit them to serve as president, but not Ted Cruz or any other not naturally born citizen person for the simple reason that in the case of Ted Cruz he was not a citizen at the time of the constitution's adoption.

The founders adopted the distinction between citizen and natural born citizen because they wanted the future of the country to rest more securely in the hands of leadership which was not divided in its loyalties. The chief loyalty to be wary of at the time was that of Loyalists, those "Americans" who were not in agreement with the break with Great Britain. They were quite numerous, and constituted an ongoing impediment to the success of the revolution. The founders imagined it possible that one of these might secure the presidency, and undo what they with enormous sacrifice had achieved. Hence the language making this less likely, if not impossible. With time, the danger passed, and only individuals born to a pair of citizens could rise to the presidency.

Fast forward to today. The whole argument over citizenship now falsely puts the priority on place of birth when lineage was meant to be paramount. The discussion suffers from amnesia. John McCain was eligible for the presidency in 2008 not because he was born in a US territory but because both his parents were US citizens. That he says otherwise is immaterial. He knows as little about it as the rest. Unfortunately, Barack Obama did not meet the requirement of Article II, but because the priority was falsely placed on his place of origin, a terrible precedent has been set. Frankly, his entire presidency is illegitimate because one of his parents was not a citizen. And after almost seven years in office, he has amply proven that his loyalties lie elsewhere than with the constitution and the American republic as we've known it.

Neither does Ted Cruz meet the requirement of Article II. It is immaterial where he was born. What is material is that one of his parents wasn't a citizen at the time of his birth. He is ineligible to be president, though otherwise well qualified he may be.

Same for Marco Rubio, who was born to Cuban immigrants before they became citizens.

It is assumed that Donald Trump's mother, a Scottish immigrant, was a citizen by the time of Donald's birth in 1946, but maybe The Donald should look into it.