Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 751-754 next last
To: Red Steel

Smart? If he is playing that way it’s genius!


151 posted on 07/21/2013 11:21:00 AM PDT by Ray76 (An armed society is a polite society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Reddon

Not to quibble needlessly, but it was Palin who removed Palin from the competition in 2012.

Just saying.

Right up until the day she did, she was the presumed leader in the race for the GOP.


152 posted on 07/21/2013 11:23:23 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

O’s Mother was not of age, but Cruz’s Mother was. How does that figure in?


153 posted on 07/21/2013 11:30:58 AM PDT by Exit148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

It’s a shame how dead the Constitution is.

Conservatives who are now engaged with a ‘depends-on-what-the meaning-of ‘natural-born’,-is’ in order to get what they want, are really acting no different than the MarxoFascists who say the Constitution needs to ‘change with the times’.

Most of us understand the intent of requirement is that a presidential candidate MUST be born in the country to two American parents who are citizens. They were concerned about anyone having dual loyalties to ancestral nations being the Executive power.

Since Obama has set precedent that a candidate for President is qualified if their mob says they are, without any vetting or proofs beyond forged documents - then technically Putin could run for president.


154 posted on 07/21/2013 11:32:50 AM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Why did Congress need to make Winston Churchill an honorary US citizen if his mother was also an American?

Because under the laws in effect when Churchill was born citizenship for children born overseas was granted through the father. Children with a foreign father and an American mother were not citizens.


Which is proof right there that Cruz is not a NBC, since it was a statute change that granted him US citizenship at all.


155 posted on 07/21/2013 11:32:53 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 149 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Former Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan stated a few years back she was eligible for the presidency because she was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and had dual Citizenship.

Canadian Granholm implies she can run for President: “I’ve got dual citizenship.”
http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/canadian-granholm-implies-she-can-run-for-president-ive-got-dual-citizenship/

Michigan Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm on Fox News Sunday responded to host Chris Wallace’s clarification that as a Canadian, she is ineligible to run for president of the United States. Granholm came to the United States as a child of 4 years old.

Granholm’s response is indicative of the mistaken belief that because one of her parents is/was a US Citizen, she’s eligible.

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.”


156 posted on 07/21/2013 11:32:54 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Yes, and Ted Cruz may remove himself as well just as Palin did when he sees the huge number of people on our side that he expects to have his back all fighting among themselves over whether he is eligible or not. As I said, we will deserve it if he says to hell with us.


157 posted on 07/21/2013 11:32:56 AM PDT by Reddon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Yep - Laws are for the little people, right?


158 posted on 07/21/2013 11:34:10 AM PDT by MortMan (Disarming the sheep only emboldens the wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
BOTH parents impact the nationality of the child.

NO it DOESN"T!

159 posted on 07/21/2013 11:36:32 AM PDT by painter ( Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Obama’s father was something of a Kenyan elite, attending university here as part of an exchange program.

Not technically accurate. At the time Kenya did not exist, since it became a Commonwealth realm in 1963 and an independent republic in 1964. Senior was from British East Africa. As such not exactly a British subject or citizen, but kinda sorta.

I've never seen good documentation on what his exact citizenship status was at the time of Obama's birth.

IMO there is adequate documentation that Obama was born in HI. I understand some disagree, but it's not an argument I care to go around again on.

160 posted on 07/21/2013 11:36:47 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Reddon

I don’t think we have to concern ourselves with whether Mr. Cruz, or Ms. Palin are up for any sort of contest.

:)

Somehow I am concerned about those two, the least of any.

Maybe I’m just being hopelessly optimistic, but I have them both solidly on my radar for 2016.

For real.


161 posted on 07/21/2013 11:36:54 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: righttackle44
It's pretty clear you should engage, Ted. Because it's abundantly clear you're not American-born. I, for one, won't vote for you

Even if he ends up on the ballot against another left-wing commie?

162 posted on 07/21/2013 11:37:51 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Maybe I’m just being hopelessly optimistic, but I have them both solidly on my radar for 2016.

Yeah me too. But this thread is depressing. I just see history repeating itself, again.

163 posted on 07/21/2013 11:40:15 AM PDT by Reddon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I was in Ramstein in 64. Second grade and I recall being “drilled” about being a NBC if we were born on base.

Our brothers and sisters would be eligible to be President of the USA. There was a difference and it was a very important distinction.

I recall very little from then but have always remembered that fact. In order to be P you must be born on US soil and BOTH your parents had to be US citizens.


164 posted on 07/21/2013 11:40:21 AM PDT by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; MHGinTN

Your comments are the alphaebtic equivalent of dog poop on a sidewalk.

Best if carefully avoided, anything else spreads the stink around.


165 posted on 07/21/2013 11:41:35 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 144 | View Replies]

To: INVAR
Most of us understand the intent of requirement is that a presidential candidate MUST be born in the country to two American parents who are citizens.

I'm not sure where you get the "most" part of this. Quite a number of conservatives, myself among them, believe natural born means citizen at birth. As opposed to a naturalized citizen.

However, for purpose of discussion let us assume your definition is correct. It is profoundly obvious that many millions of impeccably natural-born citizens, by your definition, feel no loyalty to America.

So the requirement, by whatever definition, has failed in its purpose. I don't think even technical violations of the Constitution should be ignored, but the notion that natural born citizens are more loyal is just flatly untrue in today's world.

166 posted on 07/21/2013 11:42:11 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; little jeremiah
There's not a single major legal scholar in the entire country, or a single significant conservative legal foundation, who makes that claim.

Not one.

Every historian, every constitutional lawyer, every constitutional law professor, every politician, every party functionary -- and all of the politically-aware citizens -- knew from the time of his announcement that Barack Obama's daddy had been born in Kenya. And was, thus, a British subject and, subsequently, a citizen of Kenya. And that he was in the USA on a student visa when he fathered Barack Obama II.

Barack Obama II was even at pains to tell us all this in his books.

Yet, nobody, absolutely nobody, nary a one of these acknowledged and "well-educated" experts raised a solitary question about Obama's eligibility for the office of President of the United States.

Why would that be, do you suppose?

Could it be because, under the known circumstances, he was, in fact, eligible?

Or was it a grand conspiracy, organized by the almight "they"? Or was everybody -- literally everybody -- paralyzed by Obama's semi-blackness?

Occam's Razor supports the notion that it's the former...

167 posted on 07/21/2013 11:42:58 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARAD in the past.E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: painter
Really?

The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham , March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866) [page 1291}
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

--------

So.....how many people does it take in your world to make a baby?

168 posted on 07/21/2013 11:44:32 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Thinks since one non-NBC is president and no one says a peep now the gate’s wide open now for all and sundry?

Yes.

As a matter of fact it is wide open.

After all, no one with "STANDING" has complained...

169 posted on 07/21/2013 11:45:22 AM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; ...
Constitutional Eligibility

170 posted on 07/21/2013 11:46:15 AM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winodog

The base was a possession of the USA. So I think as long as both your parents were citizens at your birth, then you are NBC.

Even though I think I understand what NBC means, I’m no authority on it and this is why we need SCOTUS to weigh in on this issue.

See Post #73.


171 posted on 07/21/2013 11:46:57 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Thanks for the ping.

Tired of Cruz being pushed when he clearly isn’t eligible.

What’s wrong with being Senator, Mr. Cruz? You’re eligible for that. You’re eligible for governor. Both are good offices to hold.

Where are the NBC candidates? Where are the candidates born on American soil of American citizen parents?


172 posted on 07/21/2013 11:49:46 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

Perhaps you can explain why the Founders wrote a Constitution that specifies that for the eligibility for POTUSA a person must be ‘NATURAL born citizen’ and then specified for Congresspersons simply a ‘citizen’. Certainly the Founders were educated and I believe would not have made such a distinction in such an important document if they had not intended such. A ‘natural born citizen’ by the Founders dialogs has several specific tags. I see no need to replace original intention with modern day expediency.


173 posted on 07/21/2013 11:50:13 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Before you continue to flaunt your ignorance of the Constitution and the law, please read up on Article 1 and the first naturalization act where Congress exercises it’s enumerated powers and expressly states that NBC do not have to be born on US soil.


174 posted on 07/21/2013 11:50:33 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Good post.


175 posted on 07/21/2013 11:50:52 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I've long thought the BC crap was a canard, but there's some sort of issue there, likely not place of birth though. Hawaii was notoriously loosey-goosey in that regard. Most likely Obama’s puffed up autobiographies would somehow be shown to be complete and total fabrication.

I think he's listed as illegitimate and therefore white, myself.

176 posted on 07/21/2013 11:50:55 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Reddon

Hey we’re the ones who should be looking up.

Everyone else is throwing the USA away.

At least we’re ready to go to bat for everything which is right and strong about America.

Just saying. :D


177 posted on 07/21/2013 11:52:26 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: wny
Palin’s time has passed.

Yes, she's older, she's more decrepit, and has more baggage than Hillary...

178 posted on 07/21/2013 11:52:48 AM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Blah.

So who are you supporting?

Thanks.


179 posted on 07/21/2013 11:54:52 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Entering that definition into the Congressional Record does not give it any elevated status, other than being able to use it as persuasive authority. It’s not binding.


180 posted on 07/21/2013 11:55:00 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: righttackle44

Lucky for us you won’t get to vote nobama again, even in sitting it out.


181 posted on 07/21/2013 11:55:23 AM PDT by X-spurt (I'm copywriting creepy ass cracker, send royalties to BR549)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Good afternoon.

Oh, well. Maybe Soetoro really is Frank Marshall Davis, Jr., which makes him a NBC.

Sad that we can't even verify 0bama's paternity.

5.56mm

182 posted on 07/21/2013 11:56:09 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

No. Natural born Citizen is required. As it now stands, one American citizen parent at birth gives you NBC status, regardless of where born.


183 posted on 07/21/2013 11:58:38 AM PDT by X-spurt (I'm copywriting creepy ass cracker, send royalties to BR549)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES

if you were born to two US citizens... but on foreign soil... you can be either US and/or a citizen of the other country.

if you were born on US soil, but one or both of your parents are foreign citizens... you can be either US and/or a citizen of the other country.

the ONLY way you can be a NATURAL BORN citizen is to be born of TWO US citizen parents on US soil.

amazing how many people try to confuse such a simplistic issue. then again, they’re doing it for political reasons... but they’re still wrong


184 posted on 07/21/2013 12:00:32 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“To determine if you were born a U.S. citizen, USCIS must look at the law that was in effect at the time of your birth.”

Congress does not have Constitutional authority to write legislation effecting the citizenship of a U.S. Citizen. The 14th Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution. The INA does not apply to U.S. Citizens, only foreign nationals who would like to become U.S. citizens.

If Ted Cruz were truly a U.S. Citizen at birth, then Congress would not have Constitutional authority to write and pass legislation to establish terms and conditions for him to be issued a Certificate of Citizenship. Only the Executive Branch has Constitutional authority to impact a U.S. Citizen with respect to citizenship status; i.e. issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

Since USCIS is an agency of the Executive Branch, it does not have the authority to rely on legislation passed by Congress to determine citizenship status. It can only look to the U.S. Constitution for authority.

Children born in Canada of American parents are Canadian citizens by birthright. http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-29/sec3.html

For USCIS to establish jurisdiction and determine if it has the Constitutional authority to make a determination of a person, USCIS must first determine one or both of the parents lived in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. Otherwise, the U.S. Executive Branch would not authority to exercise jurisdiction over the Canadian born child.

Since the Canadian born child is a foreign national seeking U.S. Citizenship status, Congress does have authority to write and pass legislation setting terms and conditions, i.e. one U.S. Citizen parent must have been a resident of the U.S. for 5 years prior to their 19th birthday, etc ...

A child born aboard must be considered a foreign national seeking U.S. Citizenship before USCIS can follow Federal Law to determine citizenship status of the child.


185 posted on 07/21/2013 12:00:46 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Maybe Soetoro really is Frank Marshall Davis, Jr., which makes him a NBC.

Obama's mama was married to Obama, Sr. when Junior was born. By the laws of Hawaii, and I believe every other state, this means Senior is his legal father. Biological paternity is irrelevant.

186 posted on 07/21/2013 12:00:56 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Ted Cruz’s father was born in Cuba and became A U.S. citizen in 2005

Then by my understanding, he isn't "natural born". That was Chester A. Arthur's concern, apparently, that his father didn't become a citizen until after his birth, making him ineligible for the presidency. He seemed to have hidden the exact circumstances of his birth most of his life due to that very issue if I'm not wrong.

187 posted on 07/21/2013 12:01:41 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

Way back when (McCain, Panama?) I read that in the old days if a child were born of English parents on French soil, he was a “natural born” subject of the King, and that our concept of “natural born” citizen comes from that part of English law. Also, this was what the founding fathers thought everyone understood.

Most of the quiet discussion I’ve seen since then seems to correspond to that. More heated discussions have been all over the map.


188 posted on 07/21/2013 12:02:51 PM PDT by Blagden Alley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
It’s not binding

True, it's not, but the Constitution is.

Please show me the authority enumerated in the Constitution that gives the federal government the ability to define the term 'natural born citizen'.

189 posted on 07/21/2013 12:03:59 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
I agree with Ted Cruz that he is eligible to be president and I support his candidacy. The people who deny Cruz's qualifications are lightweights who somehow got themselves tangled up in an 18th century French text written by a Swiss "philosopher" who argued that the State has first claim on the labor of every citizen.

Personally, I find the opinion of Ted Cruz (Harvard law) to be more persuasive. However, I recognize that under our Constitution, the voters and their electors have the sole power and duty to select our presidents and to approve or disapprove of a candidate's qualifications.

Ted Cruz - 2016

190 posted on 07/21/2013 12:04:29 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

I would vote for Palin in a heartbeat.


191 posted on 07/21/2013 12:04:49 PM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Oh.

Got it. :D


192 posted on 07/21/2013 12:06:09 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

Comment #193 Removed by Moderator

To: MamaTexan

Please show me the authority enumerated in the Constitution that gives the federal government the ability to define the term 'natural born citizen'.

I think you meant to type something else, and it's hard to tell what it is. We have three branches of federal government.

194 posted on 07/21/2013 12:09:03 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

He’s a citizen at birth by law, which is not the same thing as a natural born citizen. His parents were not serving in the military or diplomatic service, and his father was not even a US citizen.

He’s a good man, a good Senator, but “natural born citizen”, I don’t think so.

Natural Born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth. It’s not even quite the same as citizen at birth due to being born in the United States, via the 14th amendment.

Can’t change the definition just because I like the man, and he is my Senator.


195 posted on 07/21/2013 12:09:27 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: painter; MamaTexan
MamaTexan ~ BOTH parents impact the nationality of the child.

painter ~ NO it DOESN"T!

Astonishing. Which parent doesn't count?

Why?

196 posted on 07/21/2013 12:10:22 PM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
IMO there is adequate documentation that Obama was born in HI.

If you count forged documents as "adequate".

Odd Serial # photo OddSerial.png

197 posted on 07/21/2013 12:12:15 PM PDT by null and void (Republicans create the tools of oppression, and the democrats gleefully use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

See this however is why I support supporting a VP candidacy for Cruz:

If he’s for some reason ruled ineligible, at least we’ve gone to bat for him in front of the nation and the world.

The GOP will have gone to bat for a minority candidacy. That is bigger than a lot of us can comprehend.

If he’s not ruled ineligible, then he’s Vice President.

Even better. :D


198 posted on 07/21/2013 12:12:20 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 751-754 next last

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.

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