Posted under "Birther" & Conservatism & Election 2012 & Immigration & Obama & Political Philosophy
Does the phrase “natural born citizen” require a President to have two citizen parents? This came up in a thread below, and since I think it is an issue of utmost importance to anyone who says they care about original intent, I have decided to post my rather long thoughts on the matter below. (I post it as is so look back to understand the context and what and who I am addressing.) I don’t really answer the question here, because I haven’t seen it decisively answered, but I offer a way to approach the question and what I think the most cautious consensus opinion should be. I would prefer people take up the issue under this stand alone threads so as not to clutter up this very important question with more stuff about the Trump debate.
Kirt and C Bowen, I don’t think a definitive case can be made about what the Founders intended, but I think a compelling case can be made. If a definitive case could be made then someone would have already made it. I’ve only looked into it superficially and asked people I trust. There was actually surprisingly little said about what they meant and intended. That is why so many people end up referring to a foreigner, Vattel. What I believe is that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the person was supposed to have two citizen parents. As Kirt rightly points out, the issue is complicated by matters of history. They didn’t have all the apparatuses of state for recording citizenship back then that we have today nor hospital births nor easy mass travel etc. So people were generally assumed to be subjects of the place they resided unless they otherwise weren’t, meaning they still claimed allegiance to a foreign government/King, they were obvious temporary residents, etc. IMO, at a minimum, the person should be born of two parents neither of whom still legally technically owed allegiance to a foreign government. This IMO represents the most cautious default opinion. This should be the opinion that conservatives defend with a unified voice. I think the issue should be clarified with a Constitutional amendment, although I don’t think I would like the way that would likely go. I think requiring that the President be born of two citizen parents is a good and cautious policy. There is no right to be President and if the President were the minimalist position it ought to be, no reason to believe that we so desperately need to broaden the talent pool to include those otherwise born.
The problem is that very few conservatives initially even bothered to look at the issue from an original intent standpoint. Many just made arguments off the top of their head based on what felt right to them. Worse, many made definitive foot stomping arguments based on what felt right to them. This is true of both the birthers who foot stomped that being born on foreign soil, if true, was exclusionary, and anti-birthers who foot stomped that it wasn’t. I was guilty of this at first, because initially I argued that what was meant by natural born was “not naturalized” or “born a citizen,” essentially what Kirt says it means. In fact, I’m still of the opinion that a better case can be made for a child of two citizens born on foreign soil than can be made for someone born on US soil with one or two foreign parents. The birthers in general, there are exceptions I’m sure, generally didn’t latch on to the Obama is inedible regardless of where he was born argument until definitive proof he wasn’t born in HI seemed less and less likely to be forthcoming, which raised skepticism and decreased the credibility of the claim in the minds of many.
This is an issue of extreme current and future importance. If “natural born” means simply born a citizen, then Obama (assuming he was born in HI which I do), Jindal and Rubio are eligible. If natural born means something other than just born a citizen then Obama, Jindal and Rubio are not eligible. Since Rubio and Jindal are both talked up as potential VP nominees and future candidates and Obama is the current President who is seeking reelection, then I can’t understand how this could be viewed as an issue of little significance.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy of silence on the part of organized conservatism to not address the issue because they want to maintain the viability of Rubio (I believe this is what C Bowen is implying), although I think many do. That would imply more logic and forethought and organization than I have witnesses in this debate which I have been following closely from the start. As I said, I haven’t seen any kind of organization or a script or talking points. I’ve just seen a bunch of knuckleheads foot stomping and making definitive statements based on what felt right to them. I do think fear of birther taint has contributed significantly to this lack of a consensus. I also think that modern “conservatives” are just squeamish about making the argument because it seems anachronistic and harsh to them and might bring the dreaded r word charge. Birthers are partially at fault for their own taint associated with them because they weren’t cautious with their claims or their sources and brought discredit on themselves in many ways. But “reasonable” conservatives are guilty of letting their fear turn off their brains and silence them. Reasonable conservatives ought to be able to sift through the junk and figure out what is important. From the very beginning organized conservatism should have made the case in a unified voice that Obama is most likely ineligible because his alleged father was a transient foreign national. (The transient issue is potentially important because Obama’s alleged father wasn’t even here with the intent of becoming a citizen in the case that allegiance is the issue.) I’m as guilty here as anyone, because I didn’t make that case from the start, but at least I always had sense enough never to foot stomp and never to believe that his eligibility was determined by anything other than the original intent of the Constitution. By implication, organized conservatism should rule out Rubio and Jindal as potential VPs or Presidential candidates.
While I agree with Kirt that we are unlikely to overturn a popular election based on a preponderance of the evidence interpretation of the Constitution that contradicts the “current interpretation” so blatantly, to me this is also about what our unified voice should be. At a minimum, no one who calls himself a conservative or a Constitutionalist or anyone else for that matter should be able to simply assert the eligibility of Obama or Jindal or Rubio without being asked to back up that opinion with evidence regarding original intent.
Kirt Higdon on 11 Dec 2011 at 7:57 pm #
I don’t quite see that the preponderance of evidence supports that the founders intended natural born citizen to mean being born of two citizen parents. I don’t see much evidence that they gave it any thought at all. It requires time and commitment of resources to raise a political point and even more so if it is intended to be an ajudicated legal point. I guarantee you that Obama would consider it a gift if the main issue of the campaign turns out to be whether or not he is a natural born citizen. Indeed he will occasionally throw out taunts (“now there are some people who don’t even believe I’m a US citizen” – said with an incredulous chuckle) just to see if anyone will take the bait. Jindal is unlikely to be chosen as a VP candidate, but Rubio has a good shot because of the importance to the Republicans of carrying Florida. Should Rubio be rejected as a VP candidate specifically on birther grounds, Florida would be guaranteed to go for Obama, Obama’s election (perhaps by a landslide) would be assured and the birthers would be even less popular than Ralph Nader.
Now I really don’t much mind if the birthers bring down the Republican party; unless Ron Paul is the nominee I won’t vote Republican anyway. And I don’t want to see Rubio as VP, let alone President. But the Republicans, stupid as they are, still have enough political smarts that if they want someone other than Rubio to be their VP nominee, they won’t handle it in such a way as to alienate every Cuban-American voter on the peninsula.
RedPhillips on 11 Dec 2011 at 9:14 pm #
“Should Rubio be rejected as a VP candidate specifically on birther grounds”
It wouldn’t be “birther grounds.” It would be constitutionalist grounds. See you are making part of my point. You can’t make appropriate distinctions because of your visceral dislike of birtherism.
e vattel on 12 Dec 2011 at 12:09 am #
In Shakespeare Henry the V are the words..”Were all thy children kind and natural?”
This is the meaning of natural in natural born citizen. Natural is a Kind.
Do a little research and you will find the answer. Thanks for allowing me to post.
Savrola on 12 Dec 2011 at 12:15 am #
How many angels does the Constitution allow to dance on the head of a pin?
The answer is, no one cares. Birtherism is very 2009.
Another issue lost in abstractions.
RedPhillips on 12 Dec 2011 at 1:28 am #
“Natural is a Kind.” ?
e vattel, I’m not following you. Why don’t you just explain to me what the point is you are trying to make.
RedPhillips on 12 Dec 2011 at 1:32 am #
Savrola, if no one care what the original intent of the Constitution is, than that’s sad and a situation we should try to remedy by making the case for originalism.
Kirt Higdon on 12 Dec 2011 at 5:08 am #
Red, you can substitute constitutionalist for birther in my comments and it comes out the same. The Republicans, stupid as they are, are not going to throw Florida and the election to Obama in the name of constitutionalism.
e vattel on 12 Dec 2011 at 10:47 am #
The word natural is a kind, for example a kind of fruit a kind of car. Natural born citizen is a kind of citizen.
This comes from the Anglo Saxon word gecynd. If you look in the old dictionaries, you will see natural and kind had the same meaning. I have been researching this for 2 years.
Three months ago I came across a letter from Jefferson to his nephew advising him to study Shakespeare to grasp English at its highest level.
Shakespeare is listed in the Framers library’s rated #7 most popular.
Searched Kind and Natural in his works, came across a book Henry the V by Professor Brainerd Kellog in the 19th Century.
He explains the meaning of kind and natural children and it matches the definitions in my research.
I will post a link to the book if u are interested. The book can be read on line and links directly to the natural definition. It is not what you think it means.
e vattel on 12 Dec 2011 at 11:01 am #
What made me look for kind was the HBO movie John Adams, when he meets the King, Adams informs him we have “kindred blood”
I looked at kindred…thinking red must mean blood n saw kind.
I searched for kind in the old dictionaries and Saxon works. Located it matches natural and native. I was surprised.
Remember Vattel writes the naturels….this part of Vattel’s Droit des gens he explains how to form a nation. Vattel is more than international law. He explains a Constitution..
Here is the link to Henry the V.
The definition is on page 139 and the sentence on page 33.
http://www.archive.org/stream/shakespeareski01shak#page/136/mode/1up
e vattel on 12 Dec 2011 at 11:06 am #
Look for Kind on page 139, then type natural in the search box. You will seen the icons appear. It’s on the left place your mouse until u see kind and natural…then click and you are on the road to discovery…what no historian has ever found..the meaning of a natural born citizen. They have to have citizen parents..
C Bowen on 12 Dec 2011 at 11:44 pm #
Red;
Yes, I was implying a conspiracy I guess, but that is too strong, just an acknowledgement from Party B that it would need to be a well managed issue, to use Birtherism when it helps them, but to not let it get so far that is causes more pragmatic problems like Rubio.
Stupid as they are, they aren’t idiots and have decent minds working for them.
Savrola alludes to another point, that the Constitution is a prop, a religious prop, and conservatives should not spend an undo amount of resources studying the legalisms of the cap C Constitution, a questionable document to begin with, foisted on the new political state with the usual work of nastiness.
To be clear, going to legalisms is not going to sell and misses the point. Setting aside the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution, the language was probably put in there to assuage fears of usurpation from foreign powers. It really doesn’t matter what they meant only that there has always been a tradition of questioning the lineage of rulers when the potential for doubt reaches a certain point (e.g. Bill Clinton’s father, his working for the CIA at Oxford, his trip to Russia…)
Appealing to the soul is a better tactic then legalisms.
It’s clear that Obama’s history is equally vague and it should be questioned–it was neatly steered towards a technical issue that could be managed.
Rubio is clearly not a citizen but, as Kirt said, an anchor baby. I simply doubt he has the skills to handle it and won’t amount to a threat–but I happily dare the GOP to keep promoting him–make him a VP already.
Kirt Higdon on 13 Dec 2011 at 11:59 am #
Anchor babies are citizens; that’s what makes them anchors.
C Bowen on 13 Dec 2011 at 1:26 pm #
More legalese. I’d go with resident.
Kirt Higdon on 13 Dec 2011 at 3:43 pm #
Citizenship is a legal status. It matters not if you don’t consider them citizens as long as the law does. Now of course the law could be changed or reinterpreted and that might affect their legal status. Depending on the change or reinterpretation it could also affect your legal status or mine.
C Bowen on 13 Dec 2011 at 4:12 pm #
Congress just voted that pizza is a vegetable.
Doesn’t make it so.