A Response to the Idea of Removing the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause from our Constitution | by Attorney Mario Apuzzo

Constitutional Article II Presidential Eligibility Clause Scholar and Attorney Mario Apuzzo. Click on image for more information.

A Response to the Idea of Removing the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause from our Constitution | by Attorney Mario Apuzzo

University of Richmond School of Law Professor Kevin C. Walsh proposes ridding our Constitution of its “natural born Citizen” clause. See his article, “The ‘Irish Born’ One American Citizenship Amendment,” here:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165238 .

Professor Walsh writes that the original Constitution is not perfect and it is time to change its actual text. In that connection, he advocates that naturalized American citizens should be eligible to be President. He states: “There are not two classes of American citizenship, just one. It is time to repeal the Natural Born Citizen Clause.” People have posted comments to his article and Mr. Walsh addresses them here

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/17/replies-to-comments-on-a-constitutional and here http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2018/05/replies-to-comments-on-a-constitutional-amendment-to-repeal-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-2712011.html . I have picked two of the questions and Mr. Walsh’s responses for my own comment. They are:

  1. Question: If very few people care much about this amendment, why would anyone sponsor it?

Mr. Walsh’s response: Putting aside the fact that it is good for America generally, uses include: (1) deflection of false “anti-immigrant” accusations based on a lawmaker’s stance against illegal immigration; (2) attraction of votes from naturalized citizens and their friends; (3) rejection of “blood and soil” nationalism.

My comment: We are supposed to believe without any explanation that this amendment would be “good for America generally.” To avoid “’anti-immigrant’ accusations,” we are told we need to change our presidential eligibility by getting rid of the natural born citizen clause, a clause that the Framers included in the Constitution for national security’s sake. We are also told to change our presidential eligibility so that some unstated person or party can garner more votes at the polls. And the best of all, Mr. Walsh tells us that removing the natural born citizen clause will get rid of “’blood and soil’ nationalism” from American politics. In his actual article, he calls it “’blood and soil’ white nationalism.” In that article he also says that politicians should be amendable to advocating getting rid of the natural born citizen clause to give the appearance of not being anti-immigrant(“easy inoculation against the virulent accusation of being anti-immigrant”) and not being associated with people who advocate such a bad idea. His plan for getting the amendment accomplished is for Democrats to set up Republican to do the job for them. His scheme is for two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to propose the amendment, led by Republicans who for the sake of winning elections should want to give voters the appearance that they are not anti-immigrant or racists and supported by Democrats who are already on board. It looks like in Mr. Walsh’s world, there should be no problem with “Russian collusion.” Did it ever occur to Mr. Walsh that blood and soil is what makes a nation state and that it is the energy which when used properly keeps people free?

  1. Question: What about competing loyalties to country of birth for a candidate who is a naturalized citizen?

Professor Walsh’s response: Let’s remember we’re only talking about eligibility. Presumably voters can decide about allegiance. And there’s no good reason to treat circumstances of birth as a reliable proxy. (The Manchurian Candidate was born in the United States.) With respect to competing loyalties more generally, the naturalization process requires a choice and newly naturalized Americans are akin to converts.

My comment: What Professor Walsh does not address is the question of whether it is voters or parties who produce our elected leaders. He should examine why the Framers guaranteed the States a republican form of government and gave us the Electoral College as part of the process for electing our President and Commander in Chief. If voters without more can in the heat and partisanship of an election be trusted to make the right decision about who shall be the single person to wield not only the executive power, but also all our military power, then why even have a Constitution or even laws? Will Professor Walsh next be advocating getting rid of our republican form of government and replace it with mob rule? He states that citizenship is no guarantee of allegiance. If the natural born citizen clause is to die because it is not a guarantee of loyalty, then why have the age and residency eligibility requirements or any requirements for that matter? Finally, he tells us that a naturalized person is as loyal as a natural born citizen because naturalization requires “a choice.” What he fails to tell us is what exactly is that choice and how does it relate to allegiance to the United States.

Needless to say, I am not impressed with the reasons that Mr. Walsh puts forth for justifying his proposal to remove the natural born citizen clause from presidential eligibility and ultimately from the Constitution. The Framers inserted the clause into the Constitution to assure that the constitutional republic would be preserved by requiring that the nation be led in international relations and military combat by a person who had undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States. For those reasons, the clause is worth preserving.  …  continue reading at:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-response-to-theidea-of-removing.html

# # # #

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution – The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret):  http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

Also read this White Paper essay – The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How the Natural Born Citizen Term was Put Into Our U.S. Constitution as to Eligibility for the Office of the President | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret):  http://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

%d bloggers like this: