From my other blog page, The Road to Concord:
I have a confession to make: I was wrong about my understanding of what ‘Natural Born’ means in terms of citizenship. In fact, I think many of our best legal minds may be just as confused. It wasn’t until I saw a video that is going around claiming to ‘prove’ that Ted Cruz is not natural born that I realized why I was wrong. In the video, the woman speaker mentions Natural Law. So I started looking to Natural Law for the answer and what I found showed me why I (and the woman in the video) was wrong about my understanding of this term. So, if you will allow me, I will now use Natural Law to explain what ‘natural born’ means.
First, let me point out that I am not referring to or addressing the letter of any law. I am looking only to the principle of this matter, not the twisting or distorting of that principle. The letter of the law is often wrong because laws are written with language meant to allow one to get around the spirit of the law. Therefore, I want the reader to know I will be addressing the spirit of the law regarding natural born citizens.
We start by pointing out that nations do not exist in nature. A nation is an artificial entity. By that, I mean it is man-made. Now, under Natural Law, this creation we call a nation falls under the notion of the Social Contract. The Social Contract governing a given nation defines the requirements for citizenship of that nation/society. Whatever these terms are, we must understand they are the product of Natural Law, but they are not a part of Natural Law, themselves. Therefore, all conditions of citizenship are man-made, as well.
So how does one become a natural born citizen? Well, as far as I know, all nations grant citizenship to the children of those who are currently citizens of that nation. Now, if one parent is not a citizen, or the child is born outside the physical borders of the nation, the laws may have restrictions on automatic citizenship. We would have to check each individual nation’s laws to be sure of the specifics. But, if a child is born into conditions which grant citizenship according to a given nation’s laws, they are naturally born into citizenship of that nation. In other words, they do not have to go through any legal process to obtain citizenship of that nation. This is what it means to be ‘natural born’ under the principles of Natural law. And yes, this could — but does not have to — mean that a child can be a natural born citizen of two or even three nations. If a child has two parents from different nations, each of which grant citizenship to the children of citizen parents, but the child is born in a third nation that grants citizenship to those children born within its physical borders, then you would have a child ‘naturally born into’ citizenship of three nations.
What threw me was A — my desire to disqualify Barak Obama because I did not like his politics and B — my stupidity in trusting people who claimed to know better because they had degrees. In both cases, I ignored the principles governing Natural Law. Had I looked to them first, I would have understood that, so long as the law granted citizenship under the conditions of Obama’s birth, he was a citizen. I wish I had looked to the spirit of the law first. It would have saved me a lot of grief. But now I have and, while I still oppose Obama’s ideology and policies, I understand that, given the information we have been told, he is a natural born citizen — but so is Ted Cruz! At the time of his birth, U.S. law granted citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens regardless of where they were born. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen. Cruz never had to go through the naturalization process because he was naturally born into his citizenship. it is this simple.
There was one other reason I initially believed Obama was not natural born, and that Cruz couldn’t be, either. I understood that what the founders were trying to do was exclude the possibility of electing a person whose loyalties were not to the United States. Well, given the open support for Communism in this country, and for Islam, I can see how a person could be born in the United States, to two U.S. citizens — natural born in all respects — yet hate this nation. That person would be technically qualified to run for President even though they would be an enemy of this nation. In this case, it is up to the people to stop them by not voting for them. This did not happen with Obama (partly because the press no longer does its job in our republic). And now we are about to nominate a man who is openly telling us he does not feel constrained by any law because we are more interested in demanding a king than we are in preserving our liberty.
Well, no law can protect a corrupt and lawless people from themselves. If they are intent on using force to impose their will, they will do so — either directly as a mob, or by giving their voice to a strongman. And this is what is at the heart of America’s real problem. We would rather let strongmen fight for us than obey the principles of Natural Law. Sadly, this affirms the words of the Speaker of the House, Robert Winthrop:
“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
It looks like we would prefer the bayonet to God…