Posted on 01/10/2016 7:36:03 AM PST by jimbo123
Article II of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President." Donald Trump thinks Sen. Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen" and that he is therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president. Is Trump right? Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada, to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. As to his Article II status, it's all in how you read the Constitution.
There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: the Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident. A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a "living Constitution": the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, which is 1788.
Under either a textualist or a "living Constitution" theory, Cruz is a "natural born Citizen," eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn't. It's the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.
To an originalist, a "natural born Citizen" is a person who is a citizen of the United States under "natural" principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli - the law of soil - was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England,
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
:: Cruz as a constitutional lawyer needs to be more serious in addressing this question ::
It is a campaign. Let Cruz and Trump be as serious about that as their campaign-efforts allow.
Keep in mind, the American electorate has LOWERED THE STANDARD with Obama being inaugurated without challenge.
“The Natural Born Citizen requirement in the Constitution implies that the requirement is higher for the POTUS than anyone else has to meet to be a ‘citizen’.”
Correct. The presidency is the only office that a naturalized citizen cannot hold. Is Ted Cruz a naturalized citizen? No.
He’ll never be able to clear it up to some partisans satisfaction. He’d best move on and not let it distract from the important stuff
The term ‘birther’ was concocted by Obama’s Alinsky comrades as a means of substituting mockery for rational, fact-based discussion. Interesting to see who is perpetrating the tactic.
Why does Rubio get a free ride on this issue? There is no way he is “natural born”. He fits the anchor baby description more than any other.
originalist.
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section.
In the United States House on March 9, 1866 commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
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.
“Personally, I don’t want Cruz ended for *this*. I want Trump to beat him fair and square and I hope that they can get along after.”
Facts never mattered in the discussion of Obama’s birth-related lies—and there were many. Neither will facts matter in this case. If Cruz wins, the Dems, backed by the MSM, will turn the issue into a never-ending three ring circus.
Cruz supporters are evidently of the opinion that if they can stop Trump and other conservatives from mentioning it, the questions/issue goes away. They could not be more mistaken.
"ALL the Acts of Congress are naturalization Acts as Congress has no need, or authority, to confer US citizen on a child born in the US when the child's parents (BOTH) are US citizens."
No more time anyone made a citizen via statute is not a natural born citizen (NBC) as NBC was understood in 1788.
“They did not include the words natural born citizen in that Act that repealed the 1790 Act.”
But the words, along with original intent, remain in the Constitution.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
“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 chief architect of the 14th Amendment.
And that’s what an originalist believes (absent historical contradiction). The 14th Amendment means what it meant when enacted.
The professor is a bald-faced liar.
Why does he tell this specific lie?
Because Obama was NOT born “of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”.
for later
The second point might be correct actually but the first is suspect I think. The idea of natural born simpy means you are a citizen at birth so I think that if they’d considered him a citizen then they’d have considered him a natural born citizen.
Donald Trump needs to get serious about answering the question if he was ever on Pedophile Island at the same time as Bill Clinton.
You might not. But they would.
Because, in 1790, the Founders in Congress voted for the very law that makes it so.
The 1790 law itself wasn’t the important part, it was the fact it contained a definition of natural born citizen. In the absence of any other definition, this is it.sent
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.