Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

I am reluctant to start a thread on this issue because I understand the kind of debate it invites. I don't enjoy responding to the ad hominem attacks that typically ensue when I question whether someone is a natural born citizen. Given that, I will likely not respond to any replies containing them.

So far, those who have raised the question regarding the definition of 'natural born Citizen' with the courts, during the last eight years, have been found to not have standing to pursue the answer. This is because they cannot demonstrate a legal injury to the Courts.

I have spent a lot of time reading about this issue, over the last eight years, and I have considered all sides. I believe that all sides have valid points. So, I would like a definitive answer. From the information I have gleaned, I OPINE that 'natural born Citizen' is a reference to 'natural law' -- in contrast to 'positive law' (laws that are on the books through legislation and/or case law…for lack of providing a more exhaustive definition). In other words, I am of the opinion the term cannot be defined by the courts and/or in the written sense because doing so would remove the term from natural law and make it positive law. Impossible…at least in my mind. I freely admit I do not know that I am correct.

Given that there is no written law that says a person born on undisputed U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents is a citizen, I believe this particular definition is the natural law. No positive law is necessary to deem such a person a citizen -- they are a citizen according to natural law alone.

To put it another way, someone born 'on the soil' of two citizen parents is a natural born U.S. citizen, because there is no other option at their birth. There is no other nation to be loyal to, subject to, or one day choose…so their one and only allegiance is to their nation of birth and blood. That is the epitome of nature -- coming solely from nature's creation rather than man-made laws or personal whim. Human rights further dictate that a person should never be stateless.

So, how can this theory be tested in the Courts?

There must be a legal injury for a court to give an opinion. How can you 'get' a legal injury? ANSWER: By claiming a benefit under the federal government -- with restrictions that make you ineligible -- and it must be a benefit with restrictions enacted into law by President Obama.

I will use Student Loan Forgiveness as an example. President Obama signed the current benefits and RESTRICTIONS into law. If he is not a natural born citizen, then he had no legal authority to do such a thing and those restrictions lack the full force and effect of law. A person seeking the Court's opinion and having federal student loan debt could notify the U.S. Department of Education that they will be accepting full student loan debt forgiveness, effective immediately -- regardless of any restrictions. When they are denied and the agency begins legal action to default the loan, the individual can plead that the Court has no jurisdiction to interpret, apply, and enforce 'natural law.' Federal courts only have jurisdiction over questions of federal law/constitutional law. Again, on this issue, I personally believe the drafters deferred to natural law.

The People are vested with the ultimate power and we have the final say in interpreting 'natural law.' If the Court agrees that they do not have jurisdiction over the case, then we can be assured that the term does, indeed, refer to 'natural law.' If they hear the case, then we get an opinion from a federal court -- and SCOTUS if an appeal to SCOTUS is filed.

Like many people, I just want the issue laid to rest no matter the outcome. I feel it is fodder to keep us divided and bound to fruitless bickering. Take it for what you will or not at all -- it would take some serious intestinal fortitude to go through with such a thing…but it would give a person 'standing' and I thought I might share for those interested in resolving this question.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am reluctant to start a thread on this issue because I understand the kind of debate it invites.

I don't blame you... but I promise to play nice. Since I pretty much agree, I can't promise I'll "debate" nicely though!

Like many people, I just want the issue laid to rest no matter the outcome. I feel it is fodder to keep us divided and bound to fruitless bickering.

I am one of those people. We need this to resolve, because it is being used to keep us endlessly fighting because there is no right answer, so it's all about opinion. Divide-and-conquer.

I hope you're right about the possibility of someone gaining standing... and that someone does.

Thanks for cutting to the chase so well and bringing it here

a reply to: Boadicea

It's an important issue to me but I have other issues that are important and I need to deal with, right now, or I would totally devote myself to doing it myself.

You're either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or not a citizen. Cruz is not a naturalized citizen; he is a citizen because his mother is a citizen. I just used "naturalized' in its proper context. One parent being a citizen makes you a citizen, no matter where you were born.

We went through the same thing with Obama.
We went through the same thing with McCain.
Yes, the "circumstances" were different in both.

Now, you want SCOTUS to resolve the issue. It's very unlikely to happen, nor does it need to. This is being used by some people as a political club to spread FUD. I know this is earth-shatteringly important to a certain subset of people who cannot stand the ambiguity involved, but most people do not have a problem with it and believe these "concerns" are contrived, irrelevant, and politically motivated. Now the only thing this group of people has to do now is

get over it.

All I will say is that if it wasn't enough of an issue to remove Obama, then it shouldn't be enough of an issue to remove Cruz over.

Imagine telling two Germans that just because they happened to drop their baby in the US, their child is American ...

Of course, based on what I said above, then why do we allow illegals to stay here because one has a baby? I think THAT'S the test that needs to be made in court.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I understand -- I'll bet a lot of us do! Through their malfeasance, the PTB have made sure that we're all burdened and overwhelmed one way or another, to the greatest extent possible, some more than others. And bringing any lawsuit will guarantee a load of legal crap on top of that. But maybe someone can see their way to do it...

In any event, it's one more voice and that much more information for the masses, that much more to think about, if not to act upon immediately.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is a natural born citizen? The founding fathers addressed it when they grandfathered in the ability to hold the office of President by those who fought against the British since they started out as British citizens.

That tells me born to American parents inside the US.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is a natural born citizen? The founding fathers addressed it when they grandfathered in the ability to hold the office of President by those who fought against the British since they started out as British citizens.

That tells me born to American parents inside the US.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I understand -- I'll bet a lot of us do! Through their malfeasance, the PTB have made sure that we're all burdened and overwhelmed one way or another, to the greatest extent possible, some more than others. And bringing any lawsuit will guarantee a load of legal crap on top of that. But maybe someone can see their way to do it...

In any event, it's one more voice and that much more information for the masses, that much more to think about, if not to act upon immediately.

I could not agree more with everything you wrote.

a reply to: schuyler

Cruz is not a naturalized citizen; he is a citizen because his mother is a citizen.

As I understand it though, Mrs. Cruz' citizenship at the time of Ted's birth is questioned; i.e., it is being reported/alleged that she had renounced her US citizenship for Canadian citizenship, and was a Canadian citizen when she gave birth. Are you not aware of that? Or do you think it's not true? Or just not a relevant point if true?

I was surprised when Alan Grayson stated that Ted has had all his birth documents sealed or closed -- somehow kept them from public scrutiny -- including the docs that would establish his mother's citizenship, and the papers which should have been filed with the embassy to record the birth of a US citizen.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
So far, those who have raised the question regarding the definition of 'natural born Citizen' with the courts, during the last eight years, have been found to not have standing to pursue the answer.

Very wrong, actually.

For example have a look at Ankeny v. Daniels.

I have spent a lot of time reading about this issue, over the last eight years,

Yet you missed all the cases where they had standing....

To put it another way, someone born 'on the soil' of two citizen parents is a natural born U.S. citizen,

So someone born from a widowed mother cannot be a natural born citizen...

If he is not a natural born citizen,

Except he is, as the courts have declared!

Like many people, I just want the issue laid to rest no matter the outcome.

It has been laid to rest, but some people refuse to accept that fact!

originally posted by: Boadicea
ed has had all his birth documents sealed or closed -- somehow kept them from public scrutiny -- including the docs that would establish his mother's citizenship, and the papers which should have been filed with the embassy to record the birth of a US citizen.

When you take the exact same action that Obama did one can only conclude they arent eligible.

I am in favor of a law that requires a person to submit all documents showing they meet criteria to hold office.

Cruz was born in Canada.

The Constitution states that a person has to be a natural born citizen.

Historically, the Constitution has used English Common Law to determine questions of intent because the Constitution, it's terms, construction and the basis of our entire legal system is built upon English Common Law. I don't think it is possible to defeat these basic grounds for this discussion...

Next, if we are referring to it for terms and definitions found in common Law, you will find that Natural Born Citizen refers to people born of the land. I do not dispute that Ted Cruz is a citizen, or naturalized, I dispute that he was not born in America and that is what the constitution calls for.

a reply to: ketsuko

All I will say is that if it wasn't enough of an issue to remove Obama, then it shouldn't be enough of an issue to remove Cruz over.

I think you're right, and that that was the intention all along. The dead giveaway to me was the Republicans playing deaf, dumb and blind about the issue in 08. Congress had already made several unsuccessful attempts to change the natural born citizenship requirement prior to Obama. They weren't able to do it legitimately so they made an end run on the Constitution and the voters. They have now established precedent... case law... common law...

Imagine telling two Germans that just because they happened to drop their baby in the US, their child is American ...

I'm glad you pointed that out, because it's important. We (the collective "we") seem to think everyone automatically wants to be a US citizen and have no love or loyalty for their own home and nation... and that the nations themselves should be so quick to deny their own citizens simply because they were born here. There are other interests of sovereignty and allegiance to consider and respect.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I am in favor of a law that requires a person to submit all documents showing they meet criteria to hold office.

I am in favor of the parties refusing to certify the candidacy of any person who refuses to make such records available to the public. 'Available,' as in, if I want to request verification from the agency holding the records, the candidate has waived the right to keep them private. The People come first.

Case in point, Obama, who claims to have made his birth record public yet the Hawaii Department of Health still will not verify they are true and correct to a member of the public.

Hawaii's open records agency (the Office of Information Practices) has found that once a record has been made public, you cannot "unring that bell" and the record is to be made public.

Yet the Department of Health still refuses to verify its authenticity to a member of the public. I find that odd. No reason to keep it private now that he has released it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Case in point, Obama, who claims to have made his birth record public yet the Hawaii Department of Health still will not verify they are true and correct to a member of the public.

Funny that, but every previous President, Vice President and current Presidential candidate has done exactly the same, but you do not have any problem with them!

Yet the Department of Health still refuses to verify its authenticity to a member of the public. I find that odd. No reason to keep it private now that he has released it.

Exactly the same as every state, for every person, as it is a private record.

originally posted by: ketsuko
All I will say is that if it wasn't enough of an issue to remove Obama, then it shouldn't be enough of an issue to remove Cruz over.

Imagine telling two Germans that just because they happened to drop their baby in the US, their child is American ...

Of course, based on what I said above, then why do we allow illegals to stay here because one has a baby? I think THAT'S the test that needs to be made in court.

the difference, and it's a big difference...

Obama was born in Hawaii, USA

Cruz was born in Ottawa, Canada

Cruz is trying to be President of The United States of America, not Canada

a reply to: Xcathdra

When you take the exact same action that Obama did one can only conclude they arent eligible.

Exactly. At the very least, we may not know what those records reveal; but more important, we know Ted Cruz doesn't want us to know! And if there's nothing to hide, he wouldn't be hiding it.

I am in favor of a law that requires a person to submit all documents showing they meet criteria to hold office.

Yes. That's why I do want the issue to be forced, defined, and enforced. Being president is a privilege, not a right. Anyone who wants the job show be happy to demonstrate his respect for the position and the law. If they aren't, then they don't respect us and never will. If we can't trust someone in the little things, we sure can't trust them in the big things. So "no presidential office for you!"

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Case in point, Obama, who claims to have made his birth record public yet the Hawaii Department of Health still will not verify they are true and correct to a member of the public.

Funny that, but every previous President, Vice President and current Presidential candidate has done exactly the same, but you do not have any problem with them!

Yet the Department of Health still refuses to verify its authenticity to a member of the public. I find that odd. No reason to keep it private now that he has released it.

Exactly the same as every state, for every person, as it is a private record.

I had never even heard of the issue until Obama. Sorry that bugs you.

And you are wrong. It is not the same in every state for everyone...as I stated, the Office of Information Practices determined before Obama ran for President that when a private record has already been released publicly, it's no longer private and shall be made public to those requesting it.

So your assertion is not even true in Hawaii.

See the OIP opinion on the Coach June S. Jones III contract with the University of Hawaii (03-16 08/14/03 Head Football Coach June Jones’ Contract). Link

We have no difficulty concluding that, as Coach Jones’ agent, Mr. Steinberg’s confirmation of the amount that Coach Jones earns and the breakdown of that amount was equivalent to Coach Jones disclosing those figures. The bell, therefore, has “rung” with respect to those terms, and the bell cannot be “unrung” by denying access to those same terms. In other words, withholding the information previously made public serves no legitimate purpose because UH cannot force the public to forget or pretend to forget that information.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I had never even heard of the issue until Obama.

That is simply because Obama is the first black President.

Sorry that bugs you.

I am not the one bugged by Obama being the legal POTUS!