The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant
Be that as it may, there are several concepts enshrined in the Constitution that are not specifically spelled out because at the time, they were assumed to be unassailable or linguistically pure enough to be beyond argument (i.e. common knowledge).
In cases of a lack of a pure definition, I believe the Founders entrusted the citizens of the Republic, the People, to be the ultimate arbiters of the truth as it should be understood. Just because the term is not defined does not mean the Founders did not intend it to mean something. Perhaps, at the time of drafting, the term "natural born" was understood to mean something that was common knowledge and never questioned. The fact that they further elucidated "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" tells me that they understood that someone might be foreign born but in the future, that would not be the case, hence the definitive use of "or" or a lack of use of this phrasing at all.
I'm not trying to read more into this than there is, but I believe the Founders would've wanted us to define "natural born" in the confines of "jus sanguinis" where both parents were holders of citizenship in the United States only. In the case of Barack Obama, his father was a British subject, making Obama "jus soli" but not "jus sanguinis." I believe Ted Cruz, for the reasons stated in the article, is not a "natural born" citizen in the strict interpretation of "jus sanguinis" since his father was a Canadian citizen.
Then again, I'm neither an historian or a legal scholar. I'm just a citizen of this Republic trying to stay educated on her history and her future.
FWIW, I think Cruz would make a damn fine president.
I’m not concerned.
If any of you REALLY want to know what you are talking about when it comes to NBC, you MUST read this comprehensive and definitive essay on the subject. It is very long, that’s why it’s “comprehensive”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2840767/posts
I can’t read 800 posts to see if this was already addressed or not. Also it has been posted on previous occasions and you may have seen it. I implore you to take the time to actually read the whole thing. It’s dry at times and harder for non-lawyers like me, but it is the best and I would say indisputable proof of what a natural born Citizen is.
He covers EVERYTHING! You could not read and understand this essay without knowing exactly what a natural born Citizen is and ALWAYS was, WITHOUT A DOUBT. Original intent, case law, natural law, common law, British law, constitution, amendments, framers, founders (Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, David Ramsay, George Mason), historians, dictionaries, definitions & meanings, law books, treatises and cases, Vattel validated, legal principles of the Supreme Court, and on & on.
I thought I knew alot about this issue, but I was blown away by the depth to which (screen name, sourcery) has gone to prove the meaning and intended and actual constitutional meaning of natural born Citizen (and citizens of all stripes for that matter).
Where did your “since his father was a Canadian citizen.” come from?
His Dad was a Cuban refugee who had resided in the USA a number of years prior to working in Canada when Ted was born. “Resided in the USA” are key words, look em up regarding NBC.
Where did your “since his father was a Canadian citizen.” come from?
His Dad was a Cuban refugee who had resided in the USA a number of years prior to working in Canada when Ted was born. “Resided in the USA” are key words, look em up regarding NBC.