Posted on 02/05/2016 8:22:26 PM PST by kathsua
Those who think Sen. Ted Cruz can be elected to a job he isn’t eligible for are ignoring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If Republicans make the mistake of nominating Cruz for President of the United States, Democrats in California and other states will challenge his eligibility. There’s at least a 90% probability the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco would rule him ineligible because he is a naturalized citizen rather than a “natural born citizen†as required by the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.telegraph.co.uk ...
Binney is entitled to his opinion, but his was not the only opinion ever voiced on the matter. See for example here, the discussion of Bacon v Bacon:
“In Bacon v. Bacon, Cro. Car., 601, two of the judges, Croke and Brampton, held that by the common law, a child born in Prussia of English parents, was a denizen, entitled to inherit and a liege subject.”
While Binney is cited approvingly in Ark, and that would have some persuasive effect to the modern Court, it remains non-binding dicta, and the stakes would be too high in a presidential eligibility case to leave out contrary opinions on the content of the British common law as it was understood by and influenced the founders, which here clearly considers the common law to say that a foreign-born child of subjects inherits subject status by birth, and so has no need for naturalization, but rather benefits from the statute as confirmation of what the common law already provided.
Peace,
SR
No alien needs to be naturalized, Congress can leave them an alien. You do have a point that if citizenship depends on the statute, then, to become a citizen, that person needs to be naturalized.
The 1790 act operated the same way. A person born abroad needs to be naturalized, if they are to become a citizen. Take the statute awya, and they are not a citizen under the constitution.
Actually, I didn't know that, although barring any other consideration, I suppose it could be assumed, barring what is otherwise well enough known as exceptions to application of the word "all". Such as; at least one parent being a citizen of the United States, at time of the child under consideration's own birth.
Really? Where we can find that so neatly cut and dried as it was just expressed from under your own pen?
The problem I've having with it, is that I'm finding it impossible to consider, much less believe that a person who is born as a citizen is not for all other intents and purposes to be considered a natural born citizen.
That's sounds like twisting things around just a little, while all but denying that he was born a citizen, naturally so under the conditions of his birth, as those conditions were recognized to convey citizenship at the time of his birth.
One cannot be born a citizen, and then need to otherwise go through further process to become a citizen (or else be made a citizen at some later time, according to statues adopted after time of one's birth) if one was born a citizen in the first place, as far as I can tell.
You speak of controlling legal precedent.
The only things I've seen so far don't quite cut it, as far as denying that the man was born as a citizen of the United States, albeit born on foreign soil.
There is precedent in the cases of George Romney (Mitt Romney's father, who was born in Mexico) and John McCain, born in what was the then entitled Panama "Canal Zone", having had the conditions of their own births examined, and found to fit the qualification to be able to run for office of president.
Romney's went to court (didn't it? I'm no expert), McCain's birth was challenged in the Senate (if memory here serves). Did the Senate make John McCain a natural born citizen, or was McCain born a citizen at birth (naturally, under considerations of the law at the time of his birth) and that was merely determined to be the case when the details of his birth (and the laws) were examined in a Senate hearing?
You do know of those cases? Or are you the one who is "choosing to ignore" those precedents, while otherwise appearing to me to be bluffing that there is "controlling legal precedent" which would absolutely make Cruz into be "naturalized by statute", rather than natural born citizen by birth under conditions which also happen to be delineated under statutory laws, sufficiently extant at time of his birth.
That's the greater part of what "natural born" means, isn't it? Naturally a citizen at birth, under laws in effect at the time of one's birth. What other definition is there?
Those same statutes hold other delineations of who is to be considered born a citizen of the United States without making distinction between "born as citizen" and quote-unquote "natural born citizen".
I myself, was born of parents who themselves were born as citizens (going back to the mid-1700's even). Since I am among those who's conditions of birth are also listed in the same statutes which stipulate who is to be considered born a citizen, by your reasoning, apparently it could be argued that I would not qualify to run for that office (under the Constitution, and the further effectual laws which delve into the meaning of what it is to be born a citizen) since I too am among those who's conditions of birth are delineated in the same statues upon which Senator's Cruz's status as "born a citizen of the United States" needfully rely.
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to 'establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,' Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
-- Romney's went to court (didn't it? I'm no expert), McCain's birth was challenged in the Senate (if memory here serves). Did the Senate make John McCain a natural born citizen, or was McCain born a citizen at birth (naturally, under considerations of the law at the time of his birth) and that was merely determined to be the case when the details of his birth (and the laws) were examined in a Senate hearing? --
I don't know the details of old-man Romney's case (I do know he was born in Mexico, I just haven't read the legal briefs). S.Res.511 is a farce. It claims the naturalization act of 1790 contains a definition, and after a bit of handwaving says essentially, "a naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen." McCain's birth is covered by the predecessor to 8 USC 1403. McCain is a naturalized citizen, same as Cruz, and same as all other citizens born abroad.
-- Naturally a citizen at birth, under laws in effect at the time of one's birth. What other definition is there? --
Citizen under the constitution, and not citizens under the constitution.
-- I myself, was born of parents who themselves were born as citizens (going back to the mid-1700's even). Since I am among those who's conditions of birth are also listed in the same statutes which stipulate who is to be considered born a citizen ... --
You are covered by the constitution, even if the statute is out of view. Art IV, Sec. 2, and "born in the US" part of the 14th amendment.
Cruz is not covered by the constitution, if the statute is held out of view. His citizenship depends on an Act of Congress.
Born to an alien father in a foreign land.
If it was a Democrat, you know what they all would say.
----------
If Cruz was a democrat ALL FReepers would say he was not eligible to run for President. It's only because they believe like he does they are giving him a pass on this.
The more I read up on him, the worse he sounds.
Do you know, for instance, seniors, that he wants to cut your Social Security payments- even though you are just scraping by as it is?
Donald has more sense than to ever do this.
Cut giving billions to countries who hate us. Leave our seniors alone.
Before you Cruz people start flaming, look it up
I followed the 1968 race quite closely. At the time, the notion of following the Constitution like it was black-letter law was at an all-time low (dissent from the "living constitution theory" was almost unknown). I was taught in high school that NBC = born here (pure jus soli), but Romney never got enough traction for THAT (as opposed to other issues) to become a factor in the outcome. He made his national name as an early "civil rights" supporter, the 1967 Detroit riots devalued that "achievement". By the spring of 1968, after his claim that his support for Vietnam was because he had been "brainwashed", he was out of the picture and a court challenge was never even considered.
By the way, I don't see any court getting involved in this in the until an event prescribed by the Constitution such as the electoral college meeting in December happens. The Constitution does not recognize "running for president", "being nominated", "presidential elections" as anything other than optional activities, and so any state's designation of a person as "eligible" or "ineligible" falls purely under the plenary power of its Legislature to appoint the state's electors.
Leftist judges doing what Leftists want. How did our judicial system get so completely corrupted?””
By allowing politicians, criminals, and perverts to sit in judgement of people while discarding the Constitution and taking bribes.
Two state judicial bodies ...Illinois and NH, (hardly conservative) have already given a precedent setting decision that Cruz is eligible. Now that (2) specific cases has been established it will be hard for any court federal or state court, no matter how bats shit crazy liberal to reverse.. This horse is now a decedent. Let’s move on.
I like you catfish, but, I’ve noticed over the years of watching a corrupt system run by lawyers, is anything but bound to precedent. The law serves the politicians and DC lawyers to suppress threatening opponents of their stranglehold on power. The lawyers run all branches of government.
I've been working out a couple of other comments, rebuttals to previous replies I have received, which I do hope are reasonable enough.
Since you do appear to me to know what you're talking about enough to provide possibly relevant feedback, look again to this thread if you'd care to comment, or correct me if I'm far enough wrong to merit it.
Cruz might not have gone through the naturalization process, but he renounced his Canadian citizenship!
If he is a NATURAL born citizen of USA, why does he have to ‘renounce’ another citizenship?
He admits that he was a Canadian citizen by this very act! At best, he has dual citizenship. Due to his birth in another country and his birth to a foreign father, he has divided loyalty, which the founders wanted to avoid!
Since the highly recommended Roberts was sworn in, have the Supremes made a single decision for Americans let alone for a conservative.
You said, Ted Cruz is ‘citizen at birth under the 1952 naturalization act’
There you have it - his birth status is conferred by a naturalization act, NOT by NATURE!
‘citizen at birth’ is NOT the same as Natural born citizen!
Natural born citizen is citizen by nature - birth in the country to citizens of the country - CITIZEN WHO DOES NOT need anything else (RULES OR LAWS OR ACTS) to make him/her citizen, and, whose natural born citizen status cannot be taken away by anything (not Congress, not acts, not laws....)
I hat auto fill. My post to you should have said
True words
For arguably both better and worse, that answer's great weakness is that when pointing towards the Constitution, that does include pointing towards and thus legitimizing the powers of Congress to provide refinement of just what the definition of "natural born citizen" may mean in application.
Or would one care to argue here and now that that sort of thing, making determinations of that nature, must be rigorously reserved for the Judiciary?
Thank you for addressing that aspect of the various points discussed, yet that answer appears to include reliance upon an assumed definition of "natural born" that is limited to what mentions and usages of that phrase there can be found within law to Constitutional provisions alone, yet lacking the necessary step of having had those portions of U.S. Code which I have cited ruled unconstitutional, or else otherwise repealed by Congress. To do so, carrying that fault, that lack of repeal for the code through legal process forwards as if the cited portion of 8 U.S. Code was not at time of Senator Cruz';s birth sufficiently extant is to arbitrarily set aside the statutory provisions of that code (here again a link for other possible readers)
as entirely inapplicable, unable to be consulted, thus be entirely shut out, unavailable to us all in order to refine/better define what went before (in legal/legislative/applicability senses) including also shutting the door on the portions of the same English common law from which the Constitution itself was strongly influenced.
That common law included provisional recognition among the then working definitions of "natural born" encompassing citizenship be in various instances conveyed to offspring through parentage, even at times under certain conditions lacking jus soli. Though when it did so in those past eras, it chiefly conveyed citizenship through paternal parentage when considering parentage alone as decisive factor.
Nowadays, after portions of the remainder of the laws of our land have been modified to extend to, and as hopeful bulwark guarantee for equal citizenship rights as towards women, the spirit of that same common law would be among their joint inheritance, extending to ability to convey citizenship maternally in each instance where before it would have been, or better said COULD have been conveyed through paternal parentage, alone, and/or most primarily. That sets strong precedence for there being need for only one parent to have been a citizen at time of one's birth for each child of a U.S. citizen mother to be a full-fledged citizen of the United States.
To set aside the above cited U.S code is a rather arbitrary restriction upon Congress. Can not the provisions of that portion of U.S code be seen as further refinement of just who is qualified to be considered a citizen at birth? I argue here that it be an impossibility not to.
Yet sufficient statutory delineation going into close enough detail to stipulate that citizenship was conveyed upon Mr. Cruz at time of his own birth due to the conditions of the birth (his mother a full-fledged citizen of the United States) WAS "in view" at the time of his birth.
I do not believe that we could now, even if we desired to, hold those statutory provisions which were in view, behind our backs (thus satisfying the provisional "if" of the "if the statute is held out of view" portion of a crucial element in the reasoning which was presented).
Sure, but everyone born an alien, in order to be considered a citizen must go through naturalization processes in order to become recognized a citizen.
Hold on a second there...
Did John McCain have to be "naturalized"? I think not.
In another comment you had provided link to 8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904. That says that persons born under those conditions are born AS citizens, not provisionally as citizens lacking some additional element to be born full-fledged citizen of the United States. I shall address that aspect again, further on near to the ending of this reply, though not narrowly limited to Panama Canal Zone considerations...
It seems to me that you are arguing that unless one is born under only those conditions mentioned in the Constitution, as pertaining to qualification of eligibility for holding office of presidency of the United States (parents who are citizens, and born within boundaries of the United States) then one can in no way shape or form be considered to be "natural born citizen".
There is some strength to that argument, but not enough.
As I understand the collective intents of Constitutional provisions, followed by later adoption of additional statutory provisions to be;
Being otherwise "made a citizen by statute" is in regards to those persons who may fall under consideration of qualifying as citizen due to statutes adopted after their birth, whom otherwise would in no wise be "born a citizen", for they were not so at the time they were born, but only later, by adopted statute. Those person would be considered "naturalized, for it would be those persons who were "naturalized by statute". Or so I take it to be, and so do the majority of legal scholars I do believe, although admittedly I myself hold no advanced degrees in this area.
For those born under statutes which do qualify them at the time of their birth as being born a citizen of the United States, then how on earth can they not be
Good luck trying to argue there is sufficient distinction between those two which would apply in the here and now, and in the instance of Senator Cruz.
If all other conditions of citizenship being conveyed at birth due to parentage, other than those mentioned in regards to necessary qualifications for office of presidency, would not be "natural born" but instead where (AS THEY ARE!) stipulated to be born as a citizen, and under law considered as a citizen at time of birth, then go right ahead and demonstrate how an "all other" conditions of birth need necessarily by law considered somehow differently from "natural born".
I'm sorry Sir, but to be making the distinction you seemingly are is to rely upon some strict definition of the phrase "natural born" which ignores all which is recognized by statute to convey citizenship at time of birth.
That is simply not logical.
You lack a scintilla of perspective on what NBC was ever about in reality.
**************************************************
Any study of the founder writings reveals that undivided loyalty and adherence to natural law plus the fact that they used Vattel’s Law of Nations when writing the Constitution make it plain. As do the writings of the authors of the 14th Amendment, the Justices who wrote Minor vs Happersett. It was a well understood term even as late as when I went to school in the 1960’s.
The powers that be want it eliminated and Precedent Obama has pretty much accomplished that.
Your definition makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible.
Wrong, the words, “or a citizen at the time of” exempted themselves as they knew there could not be any natural born citizens for a while.
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.