Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
The Court said that not only was it within the Constitutional power of Congress to declare which persons born abroad were citizens at or by birth, it was also within their authority to set a US residency condition for them to maintain their citizenship.
That doesn't say they weren't "natural born citizens" to start with.
Congress also passed a law saying that women born here in the United States to two US citizen parents - what you claim is the very definition of "natural born citizen" could be stripped of their natural born citizenship by marrying a foreigner. And the Supreme Court upheld THAT.
They didn't even have to leave the country, even once, to be stripped of their NATURAL BORN US CITIZENSHIP.
And the Supreme Court upheld the law.
So once again, you're just spinning bullshit.
But you knew that already.
Also apparently according to Senator Jacob Howard, who, when he introduced the amendment to the Senate, said "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already."
You have to be born in the United States in order to be president. Thats not subject to negotiation.
Curious how the first Cubano fell from grace thanks to his pro-amnesty, citizenship giveaway plan.
Now, we have the other Canadian born, Cubano constitutionalist who claims he's an eligible NBC and is set to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Does anyone know the official date the U.S. of A. died?
I'm curious how many years old America was when the coup was successful.
Bye, bye, Miss American pie...
If it plays out like this and the Democrats are destroyed, then President Paul would probably put Cruz on SCOTUS.
I hope that is the case.
BTW pinging anyone to a very interesting thread which relates to this one:
Canadian Born Gov. Jennifer Granholm Was Naturalized In 1980. When Did Ted Cruz Naturalize?
Cold Case Posse Supporter | July 21, 2013 | Cold Case Posse Supporter
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 5:34:04 PM by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News’s Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn’t eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:
“GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.
WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.
GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”
With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became ‘NATURALIZED’ as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?
Continued below.
British and US law is based on the common law, with entirely different precepts and doctrines.
Exactly. Vattel, the Swiss "philosopher" in question, was hostile to American concepts of citizenship. He believed in Government with a capitial G. He believed that the State had a natural right to prevent a citizen from leaving the country to work elsewhere:
"Those workmen that are useful ought to be retained in the state; to succeed in retaining them, the public authority has certainly a right to use constraint if necessary. Every citizen owes his personal service to his country; and a mechanic, in particular, who has been reared, educated, in its bosom, cannot lawfully leave it, and carry to a foreign land that industry which he acquired at home, unless his country has no occasion for him, or he cannot there obtain the just fruit of his labor and abilities. Employment must then be procured for him; and if while able to obtain a decent livelihood in his own country, he would without reason abandon it, the state has a right to detain him." - Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natiural Law, Book 1, Chapter 6, § 74
According to Vattel, if the State views the labor of a particular citizen as useful to the State, the State can constrain the citizen and prevent him from "escaping" to another country. This was Vattel's view of the "citizen." It was also the Soviet's view of the citizen and, until the Berlin Wall came crashing down, it was the East German view of the citizen. In America, we do not view our citizens as possessions of the State. Yet even today, long after the rest of the world trashed the communist philosophy, there exists here in America a handful of Vattel devotees who want to enslave the rest of us to Vattel's crackpot theories of citizenship.
Well, it's not going to work, not here in America!
Ted Cruz - 2016
Ted Cruz - 2016
I am of a very different persuasion as to Cruz’s eligibility. As such I will have to cancel out your vote if such could be the case.
I don't think she's implying anything. Wallace said she was a Canadian and she corrected him. Which was a dumb mistake on Wallace's part to begin with since she couldn't run for governor had she not been a citizen. Nowhere in those comments did she say or hint she thought she was qualified to run for president or had any intention of doing so.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 says Congress shall have the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States..." If you're going lay out laws on naturalization then don't you first have to define those who don't acquire citizenship through the naturalization process?
Unfortunately, there are a number of people who have lost their mind over the issue.
I agree.
The sad thing is they won't engage you in an intelligent conversation.Just call you names which usually means they don't have the intellect to respond intelligently,or you have "Blown" them out of the water the truth and they are standing there looking stupid. So they call you names.
“William Rawle is particularly bad because he was NOT a DELEGATE, because he was the Son of a British loyalist,(British Mayor of Philadelphia.)...”
Actually, his step=father (Samuel Shoemaker) was the British Mayor of Philadelphia. His real father (Francis Rawle)died when he was about three.
“... trained in England in explicitly British Law, ...”
As were many of the Founders. In fact, one of the Framers, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, attended the same London law school as Rawle (Middle Temple). Mr. Pinckney also attended the lectures of Justice William Blackstone, the author of “Commentaries of the Laws of England”.
“... and motivated by his adoption of the abolitionist agenda (He was President of the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania) to push the British law interpretation of citizenship so as to make a legal case for the emancipation of slaves. (He attempted this before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and failed. This same strategy was successful in Massachusetts though.)”
Benjamin Franklin (a Framer) was also a President of the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania (at the time it was called the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery). He sent Congress a petition in 1790 asking them to abolish slavery.
John Jay (not a Framer, but author of the “Permit me to hint” letter) was also an abolitionist (although he argued for a more gradual freeing of slaves). In 1777, he introduced legislation to end slavery in New York. In 1785, he was President of the New York Manumission Society. As the Governor of New York in 1790, he signed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery.
If we limit ourselves to just Framers there is this:
Alexander Hamilton: In a 1795 legal brief on carriage taxes, Hamilton begins by saying it is shame that some terms in the Constitution are ill-defined. And he ends the brief by saying, “... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”
Oliver Ellsworth: As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1797 district court of Connecticut’s Case of Isaac Williams wrote, “The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution.”
LOL! No. The power is to make a uniform rule, no more. Does it say Congress has the authority to define natural born? No, it does not.
The Constitutional Rule - 'that which is not included is therefore excluded' still applies, despite any attempt someone may make to enumerate out their penumbra.
He’s talking about expatriation there, something that English Common Law did not allow, at all, for anybody.
Do you just not understand what you’re reading or are you misleading intentionally?
How do you make a uniform rule without first identifying those who need to be naturalized from those who don't? Those Congress say don't need to be naturalized would be considered natural born citizens.
Per SOP, DL is FOS.
Article 1 Section 8 (in part)
...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,...
Those powers are enumerated to be with Congress. “Rule of naturalization” means Congress decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen.
Since you dodged the first question, let see if you can answer the second question. The first Congress dealt with the issue of natural born citizen as per enumeration in the Constitution. In the law that they passed, was a person required to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen?
Oh, and English Common Law has no standing where the Constitution specifically defines the powers of the branches of government.
Because by including those who DO need naturalized, those who DON'T are excluded by default.
'That which is not included is therefore excluded'...remember?
----
Those Congress say don't need to be naturalized would be considered natural born citizens.
Yet the power is to make a uniform Rule for people TO be naturalized, not to 'identify those who don't.'
Crux of the matter. Cruz Papa was not an American at the time of his birth in Canada. Unless Cruz is cashing a SCOTUS paycheck, he ought to keep his damn mouth shut. Let the court decide, officially, not by silence. Has it come to this: that people can decide for themsel;ves if they are eligible or not?
The SCOTUS has behaved disgracefully in evading the issue when brought up on a variety of perfectly acceptable appeals. Bastards, do your jobs.
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.