Posted on 01/11/2016 6:27:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
One has to focus on time management and much chaff gets sloughed off....
DUH? The natural born citizen provision in the Constitution is to prevent a Foreigner from becoming President. We are now supposed to give that up because we have a POPULAR foreigner running for President? This is Conservative? More like COWIC (Conservative Only When It’s Convenient)
We should trade New England for Alberta....
How does it feel to be immortalized on a pretty funny graphic that shows up on all of these threads. I am disappointed I am not on it !
Some claim that the Naturalization Act of 1790 is an “acknowledgement” of an extant status
Why would Congress pass an act to confer an extant status? Moreover, why would Congress, at various points in history, pass acts conferring in the same circumstance differing statuses: “natural born citizen”, “citizen”, not a citizen at all, or citizenship subject to revocation?
These acts are not an acknowledgement of an extant status but a granting of a status - observe the title of the 1790 Act “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.
Some claim that the Naturalization Act of 1790 established in perpetuity that the foreign-born children of citizens have the status of “natural born citizen”. These people overlook the title of the 1790 Act ignoring the explicit fact that the act is a naturalization act, a Congressional grant, and they overlook its repeal.
If the 1790 Act established anything it’s that the foreign-born children of citizens require naturalization.
To satisfy the political desires of some they demand that acts repealed centuries ago be used - and even that is not enough. That act must be carefully edited removing the singular citizenship of the parents.
The act in force at the time of birth controls. Dismembering a repealed naturalization act and carefully selecting phrases from the entrails is not law.
In 1970 the controlling act is the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 which conferred upon the foreign-born children of citizens the status “citizen”.
The statute says “citizen”. Are words to be inserted into statute, thwarting the will of Congress?
It is beyond question that Sen. Cruz is a naturalized citizen, that his status is “citizen”, and therefore ineligible to be President.
Straight to the point. You are so right.
So then you are wrong.
Consider, for example, Judge Napolitano and his comments regarding Trump and his immigrant/refugee comment. Napolitano said it was unconstitutional while FReepers had the statute posted to prove a POTUS could do just that.
So you'll pardon me if I don't take these "learned men's" opinions as gospel based upon their "credentials". They mean little and their opinions are oftentimes just simply wrong.
Btw,if I have this right... the grandmother of the Prince is/was British.
So mother American. Grandmother British. Father Jordian.
Another Obama in the making.
>> Prince Hamzah bin Hussein (born 29 March 1980)[1] is the son of King Hussein of Jordan and his American-born fourth wife, Queen Noor <<
Same situation for the children of Prince Ranier, ruler and chief of state for the independent country of Monaco, since his wife was Grace Kelly.
But those two situations pale in comparison to that of the current King of Thailand, because he was born in Boston Mass. USA. No kidding!
Well, I guess I have a problem with my reading comprehension then, because Article 2, section 1, clause 5, clearly states two citizen parents, born on American soil, age 35 or greater, last 14 years lived in the US. It seems, since we have compromised the constitution so much, it does not mean anything any more. Sickening to think what I was taught all the years of my life until 8 years ago, is all wrong. This really is the brave new world! And it certainly is not my country any more. If we the people accept this, with all of the illegal immigrants, and Muslims, neither group identifies with the US, neither group understands or believes in the constitution, we are most surely doomed. In a few short years, we will have another alien in the white house, with only the merest pretense of being a citizen. What we OUGHT to be doing is doubling down on what the constitution does say regarding eligibility, and on the basis of this overturning everything Obama has done and restoring our republic. If we elect a congress and a President who accept the constitutional constraints placed on eligibility, we have the legal basis to do so. Every last thing Obama has done, including bring over 10,000 Syrians, which I understand is being done. You Cruz supporters, by ignoring this, are being terribly short sighted and you will regret your decision to go along with this. Thankfully, I am nearing the end of my life, and I will not have to experience the dreadful consequences of watering down this protection as you are all so willing to do, thinking you are getting a guy who is going to restore the constitution!
If you look things up, you will find that she forgot to do anything about giving up her American Citizenship until after the Prince was born. So she was still an American when the Prince was born. These are both apples. Maybe Gala and Mackintosh, but still apples.
This is really getting silly. We have enough candidates running who are undeniably natural born citizens. We don’t need a “maybe” and an “anchor baby” running this time. And look! They are both freshmen Senators! That worked out so well the last time we tried it! ;-)
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Queen Noor has not formally given up her citizenship and is still a US citizen. She just made the asumption that she lost it when she married. That is not the case. So yes, by the reasoning that makes Cruz eligible, it also makes Queen Noor’s children eligible.
Queen Noor relinquished her alliance and citizenship when she married.
and that means her son could not be President of The United States.
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.