One Important Congressional Effort to Amend the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause
Members of Congress have over the years made various attempts to change the meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it is found in Article II. One of these attempts is most noteworthy because it pertains to children born in the United States. After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in February 25, 2004, the Natural Born Citizen Act, a bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in Article II of the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128. This bill provided as follows:
“A BILL
To define the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Natural Born Citizen Act’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’’.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress finds and declares that the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 [sic] of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States– (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress . . .”
Paragraph (1) repeats the same language that we find in the Fourteenth Amendment. But if a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen is automatically an Article II “natural born Citizen,” why would such a bill be needed? This attempt at amending the “natural born Citizen” clause shows that there are members of Congress who understand that just being a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Congress also tried such changes with S. 2678 (2008); H. J. RES. 15 (2005); H. J. RES. 104 (2004); H. J. RES. 47 (2001), and approx. 25 other times since the 1870s. If a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen” was the same as an Article II “natural born citizen,” why would members of Congress see a need for this bill? Hence, it can be seen that just being born in the United States and being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
It is also noteworthy to examine the Natural Born Citizen Act Summary that accompanied the bill which states in pertinent part: “The bill is intended to clarify the term and end uncertainty about the eligibility requirements to run for the Office of the Presidency. The definition of this term is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. Congress should be the institution that defines this term, not the courts.”http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc. The same information was expressed by Senator Nickles of February 25, 2004 when he addressed the Senate on the bill and which statements are contained in the Congressional Record. Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that: “There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means.” Sen. Inhofe referred to the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and used it to argue that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress has the authority to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Among other things, the bill provided that “any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Senator recognized that simply being born in the United States and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof does not necessarily make on an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The bill did not advance and met the same fate as other similar Congressional proposals to amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.
What is important is that this “natural born Citizen” issue as it pertains to children born in the United States existed in Congress as far back as February 2004 and has yet to be resolved. What is also important is that this bill would have directly impacted Obama’s eligibility to run for President of the United States. Whether or not this bill if enacted into law would have been Constitutional is another question.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
November 20, 2009
and while you are at it dump the “anchor baby” notion….
Foundlings.
Citizenship status is fluid depending on the circumstance of the person. Consequently, Natural-born citizenship status is fluid, depending on circumstance. Under the Foundlings clause of the INA, child found with unknown parentage could be considered a U.S. citizen and Natural-born citizen until the circumstance of their birth and parentage can be established up to age 21.
Under the right circumstance, a person issued a birth certificate at birth or within 1 year of their birth and that person could later be determined to be a foreign born, non-citizen.
So, attempting to establish a persons Natural-born citizenship status at birth is a disaster waiting to happen. Natural-born citizenship status can only be confirmed after a complete study of a Presidential candidate’s life history.
Dick,
Even assuming your foundling hypothetical has any relevancy to the Obama eligibility issue, I guess we are going to let your foundling hypothetical run what is in the best interest of our nation.
If you worked for the FDA, we would have no medicine.
Thank you MR. Apuzzo for the link listed above.
We at American grandjury have been looking for this link. Thank you again.
I, MYSELF WOULD PRESS THE ISSUE OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP, AS OBAMA HAS SAID HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN. THEY WILL TWISE AND TURN AND DITHER AND STUTTER OVER THIS NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ASPECT. THE DUAL CITIZEN OF TWO COUNTRIES COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT, KEEP BOTH IN AND TRY, TRY AND TRY. GOD BLESS AMERICA
dick whitman R E EAD your own article if anchor babies aren’t natural born THEN certainly an abandoned child R ren AREN’T AND CAN NEVER BE a NATURAL BORN….A NATURAL BORN NEEDS proof…. NOT YOUR THEORY of guess work// progressives love to change the rule ”’TO MAKE IT FIT//”
A Foundling is assumed to be of American parentage, born on American soil. Consequently, a Foundling is a native-born citizen and Natural-born citizen at birth until a contrary circumstance is determined, i.e. foreign birth with non-citizen parent(s).
There are other circumstances were a native-born citizen would lose their Natural-born status, i.e. a duel-citizen who joins a foreign army and, later, that army invades the U.S. would keep their native-born citizen status and lose their Natural-born citizen status.
Natural-born citizen status is fluid and determinant upon circumstance.
Even the most liberal interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1401 or the 14th Amendment does not define a child of an alien, non-resident father to a U.S. citizen mother to be a ‘natural born citizen! Whitman get a life.
Read the whole thread, Rick. Mario has written a piece on the Natural Born Citizens Act and discusses the prospect of Natural Born Citizen status being determined at birth.
I provided a couple of examples, a Foundling and a dual citizen who has joined the military service of a foreign nation that invades the US, where a person with Natural born citizen status at birth could lose the status as the circumstance presents itself.
The reason the Natural Born Citizen Act or any other attempt to codify the definition of a Natural Born citizen fails is because it is premised on the theory Natural Born citizen status is discrete and determinant upon the circumstance of the citizen’s birth.
Where are the pictures of BO’s mother when she was pregnant? Where was Barack found? If he was found in Canada, but his mother and grandmother said they found him in the US, then he would be eligible for a COLB wouldn’t he?