I take it you've never seen this before?
Posted on 08/19/2013 6:17:17 PM PDT by kristinn
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, less than 24 hours after a newspaper pointed out that the Canadian-born senator likely maintains dual citizenship.
“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said in a statement. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American.”
SNIP
“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,” Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why should I have to do that? You constantly point out how this or that person never objected to something said. You just mentioned Robert Bingham the other day NOT objecting to the Quotation of Rawle as PROOF that he agreed. You've been constantly quoting John Marshall as completely agreeing with James Bayard because he didn't explicitly disagree. You point out that Rawle MUST have understood completely about "natural born citizen" because he had dinner with George Washington.
By the idiot standards of Jeff the looney, not saying anything is GREAT PROOF that someone agrees with something.
In the case of a book utilized by the Entire Court system of Pennsylvania, it's a tough claim to swallow that the Judges who's work is cited in the book, could have been unaware of it, and being aware, would have tolerated such a glaring error.
No, the probabilities are virtually unassailable that the Judges Knew exactly what Roberts attributed to them, and that they tacitly approved of it. Beyond them, so did the entire Legal system of Pennsylvania for at least forty years that we can demonstrate.
This is what you do. You complain that others use really authoritative sources (like Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story) who weren’t actually at the Constitutional Convention - although it is crystal clear that at least close to half of the Signers of the Constitution contradict the birther bullsh*t.
Nope, this is just the lie where you conflate a vote to seat William Smith as being equivalent to agreeing with you. Of course you do this with everything, including James A Bayard as agreeing with you when he clearly does not. You routinely attribute ambiguous or unrelated commentary as agreeing with you, and we have long been on to your silly games.
I take it you've never seen this before?
And you are suggesting that Congress has a higher authority than does the 14th amendment?
We already know from Minor v Happersett that the 14th amendment does not determine who shall be a "natural born citizen." Straight from Judge Waite's mouth.
Which STILL Cannot change the meaning of words in the US Constitution. Only an Amendment can do that.
I have had the following posted at my site for the last four years or so.
Who I believe Barack Obama Really is
I do not believe for an instant the Obama was born on our shores. And his mother did not meet the criteria (as I have stated now for the thrid time) for his citizenship through her at the time..
And his father was clearly not a US citizen.
But again, Obama was not the issue. Cruz is.
We shall have to wait and see what all comes out regarding him...and, I expect there will be those who file suite and then we shall see if the higher courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court take the case or not.
Since I referred you to the FAM, I have also found (via another FReeper) the SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei which refutes the claim that "(...) no court decision has ever separated natural born citizens from citizens of the United States at birth." If you are interested in that decision, please see my post at #358.
No, I’m saying that the Bellei case is not about the 14th amendment. That’s what the court said. The court said that it’s about enumerated congressional powers in Art 1, Sect 8.
The significance of Congressional authority over citizenship granted at birth to those born abroad is, according to the Rogers v. Bellei SCOTUS decision, that such citizenship is not a constitutional right, can be denied or revoked, and can be subject to certain requirements.
The same does not apply to 14th Amendment citizens who are born in the United States. Such persons have a guaranteed constitutional right to their citizenship and no action by Congress (absent a Constitutional amendment) can deny such citizenship, revoke it without a citizen's consent, or attach requirements to retain such citizenship.
That is a significant legal difference between a natural-born citizen under the 14th and a statutory natural-born citizen (citizen at birth) under the INA, don't you think?
For the sake of argument, assume that a citizen at birth (under the INA) is POTUS and Congress then passes retroactive changes to the INA that make that person a naturalized citizen instead of a citizen at birth. A mere legislative change by Congress can make the POTUS suddenly ineligible to hold the office to which he was elected. (Admittedly far-fetched, but you get the point, right?)
Why would it come up, they were not grandfathered in, they were eligible because the Constitution made special exceptions for those that were here at the adoption of the Constitution.
People at the time were not idiots, they could actually read.
In the real world what we think doesn't matter in the least, they will do what they want to do, and we will find some useless prattle to post on a web page, and eat our peas.
If Conservatives can revise the Constitution when it suits their needs, then it doesn't matter what I think, because the Republic is dead and the Democracy that the Founders tried very hard to prevent, will be established forever, or at least until enough patriots rise up and reject the Zombies.
Nonetheless, a statutory natural born citizen, when the question of presidential qualifications is addressed, can check the box "yes, I am a natural born citizen."
So, to the question of Cruz's eligibility, the answer is: He is eligible.
Some compare that to the case of Obama, and that's ok. The rap on Obama, though not proven, is that he was born outside the USA before his Mom had fulfilled the 5 years after age 14 residency requirement.
There is absolutely no way to prove that about Obama that I can see.
You wasted a lot of time on those studies since you seem unable to understand plain English. The argument will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court where one Idiot will decide, that we are complete Idiots and then people like you can quote other B$ cases that may or may not have established precedent, then a bunch of esteemed lawyers can declare that surely it was a very wise decision, no matter which way he or she rules, even if they include consideration of Sharia law.
There have been no statutory natural-born citizens since the 1790 act, repealed 1795.
The Supreme Court qualifies the 14th Amendment as naturalization [which it is and that it was passed by 2/3rd votes in Congress and then it was passed by 3/4ths of the non-reconstruction state legislatures into Constitutional law or as I say a super statute]:
- - - - - - -
"Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. at 377 U. S. 165, and on the announcement that Congress has no "power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent," Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 257. But, as pointed out above, these were utterances bottomed upon Fourteenth Amendment citizenship and that Amendment's direct reference to "persons born or naturalized in the United States." We do not accept the notion that those utterances are now to be judicially extended to citizenship not based upon the Fourteenth Amendment and to make citizenship an absolute. That it is not an absolute is demonstrated by the fact that even Fourteenth Amendment citizenship by naturalization, when unlawfully procured, may be set aside. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 267 n. 23. "
This was to counter Hugo Black in his dissents [Mark Levin's, not so favorite, Supreme Justice LoL! ]
"Page 401 U. S. 839
"... great purposes the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to bring about.
While conceding that Bellei is an American citizen, the majority states: "He simply is not a Fourteenth Amendment first sentence' citizen." Therefore, the majority reasons, the congressional revocation of his citizenship is not barred by the Constitution. I cannot accept the Court's conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizenship of some Americans, and not others.
- - - - - - - - - -
And the majority also said why the 14th Amendment came into being, the correct and real reason, and not what Hugo Black thought:
3. Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:
"[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . . ."
This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . ." As has been noted above, the amendment's "undeniable purpose" was "to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure," and not subject to change by mere statute. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 263. See H. Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908).... "
- - - - - - -
And many other falsities can be refuted with this enlightening and to the point SCOTUS opinion.
Please substitute “statutory citizen at birth” if you prefer that term. I was using terminology from the Foreign Affairs manual for the sake of consistency.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rogers v. Bellei was that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on the appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.
I like Cruz a lot, but I have no use for people holding dual citizenships. Canada. Israel. Wherever. It’s B.S. Pick a country, be a citizen there, and live there. We don’t need any half-assed Americans running for president; we have one now.
I agree that the meaning of the words does not change, but we all know from Minor v. Happersett that: “The Constituion does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
The “elsewhere” that the Court was referring to is statutory law, administrative law and case law.
The “elsewhere” that the Court was referring to is statutory law, administrative law and case law.
"Natural law."
Oh, she left behind a fraudulent computer generated birth certificate in her belongings?
If a person is interested in the legal perspective of the eligibility issue, it’s kind of difficult to ignore court cases when there are some that are still pending and folks keep filing them. How else does one resolve a legal dispute?
Senator Cruz’ situation has brought a whole new energy to the LEGAL issues and I’m betting, more lawsuits are on the horizon.
If folks didn’t file ‘em there’d be nothing to talk about.
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.