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



## barryqwalsh (Jan 15, 2016)

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?*


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jan 15, 2016)

barryqwalsh said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jan 15, 2016)

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


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jan 15, 2016)

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


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 6, 2016)

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


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 7, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2016)

Maryland Patriot said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > They were concerned about a future President trying to reunite with Great Britain.
> ...


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


----------



## regent (Feb 15, 2016)

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 (Feb 15, 2016)

'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 (Feb 15, 2016)

regent said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2016)

jillian said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


The Court decides that.


----------



## Agit8r (Feb 20, 2016)

regent said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



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


----------



## jillian (Feb 20, 2016)

Agit8r said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



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

*



			Jurisdiction.
		
Click to expand...

*


> 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 (Feb 20, 2016)

barryqwalsh said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 23, 2016)

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 (Feb 23, 2016)

The loons are just looning, nothing more.


----------



## Holos (Feb 23, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2016)

Holos said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2016)

Holos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The loons are just looning, nothing more.
> ...




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 (Feb 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is the purpose of this thread?
> ...



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.


----------



## Holos (Feb 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Could you share with me an online readable reference?


----------



## Searcher44 (Feb 25, 2016)

WillHaftawaite said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




Good thing they wrote in that grandfather clause, you would have had teenage Presidents elected for at least....22yrs.?


----------



## Desperado (Feb 25, 2016)

WillHaftawaite said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Seriously why is that so strange?   If we are talking about the "United States" which was not around till 1776. So it would take awhile for a natural born citizen to become president.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 25, 2016)

Holos said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Holos said:
> ...



Natural born citizen is thoroughly vague. But less so in historical context. The founders were pretty clear that citizens were analogous to subjects as it relates to birth and allegiance. And British Common law (the legal tradition the founders were most familiar with) goes on extensively about 'natural born subjects'. 

Who were those born in the King's allegiance, or more plainly, those born under the King's law. Place of birth established natural born status in British Common Law, even if both parents were aliens. 

With the founders demonstrating a profound concern over allegiance in their discussions of naturalization when debating the Naturalization Act of 1790. Its dry reading....but informative.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 25, 2016)

Holos said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Holos said:
> ...



Annals of Congress Links: U.S. Congressional Documents


----------



## Holos (Feb 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



A reading reference to the original debate would be appreciated. 

The founders were evading "Common British Law". The lengthy and gradual foundation was due exactly to their greater familiarity with the British law, which bothered them to the extent of desperate rebellion. 

Of course then, it is not any British common law that we have to observe to determine what the founders meant, but their own originating documents.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 25, 2016)

Holos said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Holos said:
> ...



I disagree. The based their system overwhelmingly on the British system. They rejected how they were being treated by the British. Not the basis of law. And the basis of law they were most familiar with was the British system.

"Natural Born' was a specific legal term that existed only within the British Common Law of their age. It would later be adopted by Vattel's Law of Nations and others, but not until long after the Constitution had already been written and ratified.

The USSC has cited British Common law extensively on this very topic.



> Of course then, it is not any British common law that we have to observe to determine what the founders meant, but their own originating documents.



There is no 'originating documents' regarding the meaning of natural born. They lifted the term whole from British Common law.


----------



## Holos (Feb 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



These documents are actually very interesting. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 25, 2016)

Holos said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Holos said:
> ...



I don't know the exact page number, but I believe its the first session of the first congress where this is debate. Just flip through the pages and keep an eye on the headings. When it says 'naturalization', that's the debate.


----------



## Holos (Feb 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I understand and your knowledge to me is now made clearer by the sharing of your references. Thank you.

I did not mean originating documents regarding the meaning of natural born, although that would be ideal. I just meant the actual caused discussions between the founders, which you have already refered me to. 

I believe I cannot continue this debate from where I stand now. I need to study these works before I have any individuated opinion. I was not aware of the varied procedence of the expression in question and now I have a clearer direction to follow to arrive at my position. 

Thank you.


----------



## Holos (Feb 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I believe I found the reference. 
However, I believe debate on naturality and "rule for naturalization" (as it is in the documents) are two very distinct things.

Anyhow, I cannot continue the debate before more study on my part. Thank you for the homework.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 25, 2016)

Holos said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Holos said:
> ...



I'm not offering the Naturalization Act of 1790 as a source on natural born. I'm offering it as a source on the founders deep concern with allegiance. With allegiance being the answer to your question on why they wanted a natural born citizen.


----------

