Posted on 01/07/2016 11:32:52 AM PST by The Looking Spoon
In Canada a natural born citizen is someone who is born in the country or someone born abroad and has one parent who is a citizen.
In the United States according to this Harvard Law Review article, a naturally born U.S citizen would fall under the very same requirements.
Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen†in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.If Ted Cruz's citizenship concerns you then know at the worst, so to speak, he was a dual citizen (until he formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014) since he satisfied the natural-born criteria for both countries.
So it seems illogical to propagate the canard that if conservatives and "birthers" thought Obama wasn't a citizen then this should matter to them.
FWIW: Basically the only people who believed the birther claims against Obama were GOP primary voters, Cruz should not take this lightly — Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) January 6, 2016
While I poked fun at it with some photoshops I was never one to buy into this attack on Obama. If he was born in Hawaii then he was a citizen, even if his heart belongs to the La La Land liberals are actually citizens of (in spirit, of course, that land doesn't really exist no matter how hard Hollywood tries) he at least satisfied the letter of the clause.
On the surface, what Pfeiffer says might be true, but Cruz won't (or shouldn't) face backlash because he has been on this issue something Obama never has been...totally and completely transparent.
Cruz doesn't play coy about his birth history. We don't have in writing that he claims to be born in another country, unlike a bio put out by Obama's literary agent (for the sake of discussion, he was probably lying to seem exotic to not-so-racist liberals...we really need a sarcasm font). And nobody asks about Cruz's birth history because we already know the unequivocal answer.
The only reason stuff is being said now, by the likes of John McCain...
...because Cruz isn't a member of their liberal butt-sniffing pack.
The way conservatives have been attacked over the last few years by these RINOs I'm starting to think they have their horns on loan from Satan. If RINOs and GOPe hacks are coming after the most purely conservative Republican running in such an illogical and idiotic way then that would actually be the best thing going for Cruz. If they would take their heads out of liberal asses for more than a few seconds they might actually realize that.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED in 1795, due in part to concerns about possible negative repercussions to the natural born citizen provisions of Article II. Note the emphasis in the 1790 Act on the FATHER. The framers were patriarchical, and they believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship condition of the FATHERS. That emphasis was due in large measure to their reliance upon the Emmerich de Vattel definition of natural born citizen derived from the “Law of Nations” which is referred to in the opening clause of Article I.
The only definition for a constitutional term within the constitution is for the crime of treason. There is no definition for high crimes and misdemeanors either, but that has not stopped impeachment matters from proceeding.
Also, even in the 1790 Act, the wording of it made reference to parent(s) plural, not singular.
Finally, NO STATUTE can modify the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That can only be done thru an Article V amendment process.
You’re right, and I knew that the law and the one of 1795 was superseded by future laws. I admittedly didn’t catch that it just says “citizen” in section 3...
But it sets up an interesting question of whether there truly are two classes of born citizens. I know where you stand.
There are others who contend that someone who is born a citizen and doesn’t have to go through any naturalization process would thus be considered natural born by virtue of the fact they don’t have to be naturalized.
I’ve also seen arguments that contend the 1795 act doesn’t explicitly redefine the term in Article II because “natural born” was left out.
Apparently it’s all above my paygrade...but again, I know where you stand. :-)
“...I see nothing more illogical in politics these days than people propagating the notion that the son of a foreign citizen could also simultaneously be a natural born citizen of the United States...”
Does his mother’s US citizenship count for anything?
It isn’t above your paygrade. The concept that the Constitution can only be understood by Constitutional lawyers is mal-education.
The Constitution isn’t that difficult to understand.
Justification for some of the crap federal judges have come up with...THAT might require a post-graduate degree in such matters.
I agree it’s not difficult to understand, but in areas that are not clearly defined is it not hard to see why the debate over those items becomes so contentious?
It happens even on a thread like this where we are all conservatives with very similar worldviews. That proves how open and shut this case isn’t.
The same way climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by human activity.
There are dissenting legal scholars, and there are dissenting climate scientists.
Not really. There are counterpoints to their contentions, and their contentions depend on overlooking remarks in SCOTUS citizenship cases.
I am going to assume that you are not open to a point of view that disagrees with your conclusion, IOW, you have no interest in challenging or questioning your conclusions, nor are you open to revising them. Suffice to say that the conterpoints are easily found in all the FR threads on this subject.
That was the residency requirement he was speaking of, I think., The one that is part of “35 y/o, NBC, resident for 14” presidential qualifications.
I’m well aware that other points of view exist. I did start this thread after all, and I have read, considered, and even engaged the dissenters. So what you’re implying perplexes me.
No implication, just another way of saying I wasn’t going to engage in personalized correspondence with you (no hard feelings, honest), and whatever it was I was claiming, there are all sorts of posts with supporting authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.