Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Ira_Louvin

I like Ted Cruz and I voted for Ted Cruz as my Senator.

The issue of who is a “Natural Born Citizen” has never been actually been legally defined as I understand it.

Here are the opinions I have heard on the matter:

1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.

2. Some say that both parent must be Americans at the time of the Child’s birth.

3. Some say that as long as you never had to be naturalized to become a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. I believe this is the case with Cruz.

If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.


33 posted on 07/21/2013 9:49:44 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: 3Fingas

There are hundreds of threads about eligibility.

The historical understanding of NBC has always been:

Two citizen parents

Born on US soil

That is, until the usurper appeared on the scene.


36 posted on 07/21/2013 9:52:04 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas
The issue of who is a “Natural Born Citizen” has never been actually been legally defined as I understand it.

There is one Supreme Court case that mentions NBC, preceding the 14th amendment and the Supreme Court case that famously misinterpreted the 14th's intent (neither of which mentioned the specific case of NBC). Under that unique precedent Obama is ineligible, regardless of his birthplace or birth certificate, so the Obots strive to keep it out of the discussion.

48 posted on 07/21/2013 10:00:27 AM PDT by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas

The second item is the correct one.

There is a distinction between a ‘born citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’.

English common law usage definitions were still commonly used by colonialists and by the new United States of America at the time of drafting the US Constitution.

English common law defined at the time a born citizen was a child born on the jurisdictional soil of a subject.

English common law defined a ‘natural’ born citizen as a child born on jurisdictional soil of two parents who were both subjects (later subjects=citizens). In other words a normal family birth of two citizens on jurisdictional soil would confer ‘natural born citizen’ status on the child. Natural born citizenship was perceived to have a higher fealty to the crown or country.

We must remember that in British society there were several layers of social rank. A mere subject citizen could not be a Lord or an Earl. Only those with the required lineage could be granted royal status.

In the colonies, a child born say for example to a colonial father and an indian mother would be considered a subject but not a natural born subject.

When the Founders of the Constitution wrote ‘Natural Born Citizen’ into the requirement for eligibility for President whereas all other offices only required mere citizenship, they knew exactly what they saying.

The distinction has been lost in the noise over the centuries but is now raised as an issue because there are serious serious concerns about Obama’s loyalties. The issue has been visited in the 19th century with a ruling that confirms what I describe above. But it has also been visited by late 20th century reviews by judges that either did not take the time to trace back the meaning or did not have the staff to research it.

The issue must go to the Supreme Court who have access to hundreds of legal scholars who know the history well. The issue has not got that far yet but it must go there to sort out the meaning and its importance.


73 posted on 07/21/2013 10:24:45 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas
The issue of who is a “Natural Born Citizen” has never been actually been legally defined as I understand it.

This would be partly correct. I would say that it has been partly defined legally. Here are the opinions I have heard on the matter:

1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.That's correct. Virtually everyone born in the United States is, legally speaking, a natural born citizen.

The major legal case that established this was US v. Wong Kim Ark (Supreme Court, 1898).

Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not US citizens and completely ineligible ever to become US citizens. His parents returned to China. He made two trips to China, the first time being admitted back into the US without incident on the grounds that he was a citizen. The second time, the customs and immigration authorities denied him re-entry, claiming that since he was Chinese he was not a US citizen in spite of the fact that he had been born in San Francisco.

Wong took his case through our legal system, and it reached the Supreme Court which declared that he was a citizen.

In the final declaration, since that's the question they were asked ("Is Wong a citizen?") that's what they said: "Wong is a citizen."

The entire RATIONALE of the case, which is legally binding precedent on a level equal with the final declaration, had to do with who is, and who is not, a NATURAL BORN citizen.

The implications of this natural born citizenship for Presidential eligibility were also discussed in the case, including by the dissent (a lone 2 Justices), who pointed out in the dissent that this meant that US-born Chinermen and members of other "inferior" races are eligible to the Presidency.

So in spite of the claim of birthers, who refuse to recognize the entire rationale of the Wong case as the precedent it is, the case established a crystal clear precedent.

If you were born in the United States to non-citizen, non-diplomat parents who were residing here, then you're a natural born citizen.

The children-of-diplomats exception is one that goes back for many centuries in US, colonial and (originally) English law.

The historical exceptions were: children of diplomats, children of foreign royalty, and children of invading armies.

So if Prince William and Kate were to come over to the United States and have their royal baby born in a hospital in New York City, according to the historical exceptions, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.

If diplomats of the UK or some other country have a baby here, that baby, historically, is considered to be born under the legal umbrella of that nation and not our own. So historically speaking, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.

And if Russia were to invade and seize the city of Fairbanks, Alaska, and hold it for a couple of years, and members of that invading army were to have a child in Fairbanks, it would not be a US citizen.

Except that exception is so extremely rare historically that I'm not quite sure what it would really mean. I would think that it would only exclude the child of a member of a foreign invading army that that soldier had with a mother who was not a US citizen. Because if a child's mother is a US citizen, then the child is a US citizen as well.

A couple of issues weren't necessarily addressed by the Wong decision, because they weren't really a factor in those days: Children of illegal aliens, and birth tourism.

Legally, one could argue that illegal aliens are not submitting to our legal system and laws, and therefore their children are not natural born citizens. Our current practice is that such children born here ARE natural born citizens. But I don't know that necessarily has to be the case. Not that it really matters, however. There does not exist the will in Congress to pass a law excluding such children from citizenship, and probably never will.

Birth tourism is a small but real issue. Still, the Wong decision was based on a case of RESIDENT non-citizen parents. So there's probably some wiggle-room to exclude anchor babies as well. Again, IF there were the will to do it. Which I doubt.

2. Some say that both parent must be Americans at the time of the Child’s birth.

Very, VERY few people have ever made this claim throughout our history. The very few who have, were usually people with little or no authority who were strongly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars.

3. Some say that as long as you never had to be naturalized to become a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. I believe this is the case with Cruz.

That's really the bottom line.

Strictly speaking, the case of a Ted Cruz has not been judicially decided.

But historically, from the very beginning of our Republic, when push comes to shove, the "real" definition of natural born citizen has always pretty much been "born a citizen" or "citizen by birth."

There have always been only two categories: Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

The first includes everyone who was born a citizen. The latter includes everyone who became a citizen after birth, through some process of naturalization.

It also seems very clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended for folks like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President. The First Congress immediately passed a law declaring that the children born overseas to American parents were to be counted as natural born citizens. So it is clear that they intended those children to be eligible to the Presidency as well.

A later Congress changed the wording, dropping the words "natural born." But legally and historically speaking, my firm opinion is that that really doesn't matter. We could get into a lot of the details as to why, but this post is too long already.

I will briefly mention one of those details.

In 1834, James Bayard wrote "A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."

In that exposition, he wrote very specifically and very clearly that it was NOT necessary to be born in the United States in order to be Constitutionally eligible to be President. It was only necessary to be born a citizen, or to be a “citizen by birth.”

That was an explicit declaration that people like Ted Cruz are eligible.

Bayard’s exposition was read and approved by none other than Chief Justice John Marshall, the “Great Chief Justice” who dominated the US Supreme Court for 35 years starting just 13 years after the Constitution was adopted. Marshall had one minor correction to make. Other than that, he said, he hadn't seen anything in the entire book he didn't agree with.

If anyone was in a position to know what the Founders meant by the term, it was Chief Justice Marshall. From his approving letter to Bayard, it’s clear that he read Bayard’s book. And he would not have missed such an important matter as who was eligible to be President.

So while the case of a person born a US citizen abroad has never yet reached the Supreme Court, there are some very strong legal, historical and common sense arguments that such people are equally eligible. I haven't been able to find a single major legal scholar who thinks that someone like Ted Cruz is not eligible.

Here's what I would expect if Ted Cruz runs for and is elected President.

I would expect that someone would file a court case challenging his eligibility.

And then I would expect that our court system would affirm his eligibility. It would probably be appealed up to the Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court would hear the appeal or just decline to hear it and let it stand, I'm not sure. My gut feeling is that they definitely would hear it if a lower court said he was ineligible, and they would probably hear it if the lower courts said he was eligible.

If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.

I am not a lawyer by training. But I do understand the legal principles involved. And I've thoroughly digested the history of the issue, including all of the major legal cases throughout history (which I've read), and looked very closely at all of the legal and historical precedent.

199 posted on 07/21/2013 12:12:53 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas

Sorry, I messed up a couple of paragraphs a bit on that reply. Should’ve previewed before hitting the post button. :-)


200 posted on 07/21/2013 12:13:56 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas
Here are the opinions I have heard on the matter:

1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.

2. Some say that both parent must be Americans at the time of the Child’s birth.

3. Some say that as long as you never had to be naturalized to become a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. I believe this is the case with Cruz.

If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.

Thanks for that moment of clarity.

283 posted on 07/21/2013 2:34:18 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas

“If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


289 posted on 07/21/2013 2:45:03 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas

The founding fathers wanted undivided loyalty hence the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement for the presidency - i.e. one born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents resulting in undivided loyalty to USA.

Even if one does not have to naturalize to be a US citizen, such as in Cruz’s case - he might have been a US citizen due to his mother’s US citizenship and he didn’t have to naturalize to be a US citizen, BUT he was born in foreign soil to a foreign father, so has dual citizenship/divided loyalty - he is a Canadian and a USA citizen!

If country of birth determines ‘nbc’ then Cruz is a nbc of Canada!
If the citizenship of 1 parent determines the child’s citizenship then Cruz is a Canadian due to his father, AND, a USA citizen due to his mother!

Can a person with dual citizenship and divided loyalty be the president of USA? Not according to The US Constitution !


291 posted on 07/21/2013 2:50:30 PM PDT by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson