Monday, April 20, 2015

Regent University Law Review: Obama Article II 
Usurpation Should Not Be Ignored Or Dismissed!?

John Jones published a scholarly paper in the Regent University Law Review on the Article II "natural born Citizen" requirement controversy. Regent University Law Professor C. Scott Pryor highlighted the paper in a recent blog post also taking a swipe at the recent Harvard Law Review propaganda piece on the Article II requirement.

Jones laid out the case that the founders relied on Vattel's writings for defining "natural born Citizen" noting:

All this is purely academic unless Vattel speaks unequivocally to the meaning of natural born citizenship. Fortunately, Vattel’s treatment of the topic is unequivocal, unambiguous and clear:″[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.″ Vattel’s treatment of the term leaves little to be desired by way of a definition. Natural born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Vattel provides a condensed discussion of why natural born citizenship works this way.[...] (continued below)

Professor Pryor noted at his blog:

Ted Cruz Can't Be President?! 
Yes, Virginia, there may be more to "natural-born citizen" than meets most eyes (including Paul Clements), but I won't spoil your reading by telling you what Vattel included in his understanding of the expression or how, of all people, Chester Arthur fits into this peculiar picture. You'll simply have to read Jones's piece for yourself and draw your own conclusions. [...] Pryor Thoughts.

Some more excerpts via John Jones @ Regent University Law Review:

Natural Born Shenanigans: How the Birther Movement Exacerbated Confusion Over the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Requirement 
Ultimately, both Chester Arthur and Barack Obama served as President, for better or worse, and nothing will change that. But the fact that they may have done so in violation of an explicit constitutional requirement should not be ignored or dismissed. The Constitution is our bedrock statutory law. It is both foundational and supreme in its force and application. Its measures to prevent individuals with split national loyalties ascending the presidency are perhaps more appropriate now than ever before as globalization increases and globalist intrigue follows. The regard paid the natural born citizen requirement does not reflect the gravity of the risks it was designed to counter.

A compelling case can be made that″natural born citizen″ is a term of art which excludes Chester Arthur, Barack Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ted Cruz, and many other candidates who may be very well qualified in every other way. We should not ignore this conflict. We should not allow it to be defined away contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The tension at the heart of the historical public meaning of ″natural born citizen,″ while much lower profile than the sensationalism of the low points of the birther movement, is much more durable. Popular coverage of and reaction to the birther movement misrepresented the natural born citizen clause, and it became easy for observers to dismiss all such challenges out of hand. 
But lurking between the sensational coverage of the more ineptly handled birther suits and the ambiguities in the text of the provision is a real controversy. It is unlikely to fade with time because it is based not on individual men and their voting preferences, but on a historical understanding of a carefully contemplated and duly ratified provision of the Constitution. 
It is not aimed at excluding any individual candidate or party, but on protecting the nation and its most powerful executive office from foreign influence by excluding a class of candidates who carry a higher risk of split national loyalties. 
This cuts equally against Barack Obama and Ted Cruz--it is not a partisan issue, but a constitutional one. Whatever the final resolution of the controversy, we should settle it soon. It is not for the health of our Constitution that we continue to misconstrue or ignore its provisions. National politicians will not deal with the problem, as political fortunes counsel otherwise. Besides, it is not candidates or the federal government, but the states, which are the primary arbiters of presidential ballot access.                                                      [...] Regent University Law Review. Hat tip Pixel Patriot.

You can download the complete 23-page paper in PDF format by clicking here.