Posted on 04/07/2016 11:59:33 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
See 79, morphing libertarian.
On the question of birth abroad, there are several SCOTUS rulings, all of which find that person to be naturalized. Rogers v. Bellei, Miller v. Albright and Nguyen v. INS are three more recent SCOTUS cases.
Those cases do not fully define NBC, but they do exclude those born abroad from the class of NBC.
-- ... they have let enough precedent elapse that they now have only one reasonable way to rule when and if they ever get around to it. --
Reversing the finding that those born abroad are naturalized would have a profound impact on naturalization and denaturalization cases. That doesn't mean that SCOTUS wouldn't reverse itself. It only means that such a decision has ramifications outside of presidential eligibility.
I'd say that is an "it depends" issue. If one follows the constitution and precedent, you are correct. If one ignores the constitution and precedent (which is garden variety common), then the conclusion is incorrect.
if such person would otherwise be stateless at birth.'
It wouldn't apply to Cruz anyway as he had a "state", in Canada, because he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship!
“If true, I stand corrected.”
The issue is disputed. McCain refuses to release his birth certificate for public examination and review. He did reveal what he claimed was his birth certificate to a single reporter in private, and the reporter claimed the birth certificate said McCain was born at the U.S. Navy Hospital, Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Canal Zone. Fred Hollander released what he purported to be the birth certificate of John McCain in his 2008 lawsuit challenging McCain’s eligibility, and that public document states the birthplace was in the Colon Hospital, Colon, R.P. [Republic of Panama]. Consequently, McCain’s claim of birth inside the U.S. Canal Zone is contradicted by the only publicly available and purported documentary evidence of McCain’s birth certificate.
“I don’t know why congress cannot clarify something that they pass, but none of these senators were around in the l1780s and 90s. It just seems that way.”
The term, natural born citizen, is a legal term of art; and such terms of art are beyond the authority of the Congress to define. Any effort by the Congress to define the term would be unconstitutional. This is probably one of the reasons why it was insisted the term had to be removed when the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795.
Both of my children were born outside the US while I was serving in the USAF. Both were born in US Army hospitals in Germany. Both my wife and I are US citizens born in the US. It is hard for me to believe that my children are not naturally born citizens. I also knew of military families, both husband and wife born in the US, where one of their children, for medical reasons, was born in a German hospital. Its hard for me to believe that child is not a natural born US citizen.
Yes, no supporter of the man here, but fair enough.
Born on American soil to parents who are citizens of the US, either by birth or naturalization.
John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen because there is no possibility of him being anything else. Simple. I learned that here at FR; no reason to make anything any more complicated out of it than that.
“If one ignores the constitution and precedent (which is garden variety common), then the conclusion is incorrect.”
Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court can pretend and legislate that the Sun orbits the Earth, that Anthropogenic Carbon dioxide emissions cause Climate Change, that a mud puddle in a driveway is a Federal waterway, that King Canute really did have the power to command the tide to reverse direction, that Congress has the Constitutional enumerated power to command the purchase of health insurance, that Obama is a natural born citizen with a an underage U.S. mother and a Communist Kenyan father, a Yellow Dog is more suitable than a Human Republican candidate for President, or a naturalized U.S. citizen is a natural born U.S. citizen; but all their pretending will not change the fact Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen, born abroad, born without a U.S. citizen father, and is not eligible no matter how much they claim it to be so and act as if it were so.
.
“Yes, no supporter of the man here, but fair enough.”
Wrong.
“Born on American soil to parents who are citizens of the US, either by birth or naturalization.”
No, John was not born on American soil. Yes, John McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens. No, John McCain was not and could not have been a natural born citizen under any circumstances. John McCain was a naturalized U.S. citizen.
“John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen because there is no possibility of him being anything else”
Wrong, you have that backwards. No child born abroad can ever be a natural born citizen of the U.S. as observed by the U.S. Supreme Court: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“Simple. I learned that here at FR; no reason to make anything any more complicated out of it than that.”
There is nothing particularly complicated about it as observed by the U.S. Supreme Court: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). “DANIEL, J., Separate Opinion. Mr. Justice DANIEL. . . . . [quoting Vattel] The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
John McCain’s birth in the Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama is not on U.S. soil. If you choose to believe John McCain was born in the U.S. Navy Hospital, Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Canal Zone, John McCain was still not born on U.S. soil, because the Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory of the United States. See:
U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES. . . 7 FAM 1113 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United States” . . . c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
“Both of my children were born outside the US while I was serving in the USAF. Both were born in US Army hospitals in Germany. Both my wife and I are US citizens born in the US. It is hard for me to believe that my children are not naturally born citizens. I also knew of military families, both husband and wife born in the US, where one of their children, for medical reasons, was born in a German hospital. Its hard for me to believe that child is not a natural born US citizen.”
They are naturalized citizens of the U.S., and they cannot be natural born citizens of the U.S. See:
United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES. . . 7 FAM 1113 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United States” . . . c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
I agree. “Under the jurisdiction” would apply as in English Law. I’m sure John Adams would agree. He lived abroad for many years in the service of our country along with his wife Abigail.
Thanx
Sad
Full Definition of jurisdiction
1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercise
My point has been stated throughout the thread about the resolution and I think McConnell has put Cruz in a bad spot. Not everything is a hidden agenda.
Facts and truth always matter to me and I think the deme are going after Cruz’ eligibility if he’s on the ticket. Also, I got into a pissing match with a friend about McCain. Why doesn’t it matter to you?
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
How do they do this without “interpreting” the constitution?
makes great sense
thanx
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.