Posted on 01/12/2016 3:53:27 PM PST by Idaho_Cowboy
Ted Cruz's mother was a natural born American citizen.
I didn't see you pinheads say a peep about the loss of the Bill of Rights one by one, but you sure want to make this conspiracy theory claim against Cruz.
You have obviously never read the law, yet you think your claims to the Constitution hold water when you don't say squat about the loss of actual rights.
Phony patriotism, that's all this is.
BTW: I stumbled on you handy collection of Federalist papers here on FR. Very nice I was just looking for a good place to find them online.
Absolutely correct, Good Show!
“Ted Cruz’s mother was a natural born American citizen.”
Yes, there is no doubt that she started out as a natural born U.S. citizen, and she probably remained a U.S. citizen. However, it cannot be taken for granted she remained solely a U.S. citizen. Her husband, Rafael Cruz was a Canadian Permanent Resident on the path to naturalizing as a Canadian citizen, and he did naturalize as a Canadian citizen. Customarily the wife must also be a Canadian Permanent Resident alongside her husband to convince the Canadian authorities that they are serious about wanting to satisfy the Canadian requirement to remain as Permanent Residents or permanent Canadian citizens. So, there is every reason to suspect Eleanor Cruz was a Canadian Permanent Resident when Ted Cruz was born and may even have been a Canadian citizen in the event the timeline we’ve been given is incorrect. We do know Canadian law required Rafael Cruz and/or Eleanor Cruz to be a Canadian citizen or a Canadian Permanent Resident before Ted Cruz could acquire the Canadian citizenship at birth we alreay know he did acquire. So, one or both of those parents were at the very least Canadian Permanent Residents in preparation to naturalize as Canadian citizens. For all we know Eleanor Cruz did naturalize as a Canadian citizen and kept her U.S. Passport without renouncing her U.S. citizenship.
Thank you for one of the first reasonable review of the current law.
The only reason this thing is an issue now is because Trump mentioned it, and the media lurks over and savors everything he says, especially if it might be negative for another Republican.
If Trump ordered his Big Mac with no pickle, CNN would move it as a bulletin.
No Idaho_Cowboy. This is a recounting of Hamilton’s opinion. It was not confirmed by the ratification committee. At the last minute, September of 1787, John Jay added the criterion of natural born citizenship. Hamilton only specified a that the president be a citizen. Jay’s amendment was accepted by the committee and has never been altered, neither by interpretation, nor by the amendment process. Congress has no authority to affect Article II or any other article through Congressional acts.
Hamilton himself, though not born on our soil, was eligible to be president by the “grandfather clause”. He was a citizen at the ratification, 14 years a resident, and 35 years of age. And Hamilton did sign the revision by John Jay, accepting the more restrictive constraint on presidential eligibility, consistent with the Federalist Paper’s primary concern with potential usurpation through foreign intrigue.
As I write I am sadly hearing Mark Levin destroy his credibility on this issue. He repeatedly conflates U.S. Citizenship with Natural Born Citizenship. It cannot be an accident. He insults people, clearly not wanting them to understand that being a U.S. Citizen does not make one a Natural Born Citizen. He announced that Larry Tribe, in Senate Resolution 511, “...has shown that there was no doubt that that Senator John McCain was a U.S. Citizen.”
Why is this subterfuge? The issue, and the title addressed by Larry Tribe and Ted Olson, was “Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.” In the law, and especially in our Constitution, every word must be assumed to have meaning. If Mark Levin has used the term natural born citizen I missed it - which is possible. There is no doubt that John McCain was a citizen. Birth to even one citizen parent made him a naturalized citizen. The issue in SR 511 was whether or not he is a natural born citizen. Tribe and Olson never questioned McCain’s citizenship. They tried to fix McCain’s unfortunate birth on a territory over which the U.S. had no sovereignty, until the year after McCain was born; born in 1936, Congressional treaty with Panama, 1937. They depended upon the entirely rescinded 1790 Naturalization Act, which had the only mention ever by Congress of natural born citizenship. Congress, Madison and Washington’s signature, replaced “natural born citizen” of “foreign born children of citizens considered natural born” with “foreign ... are “citizens”.
Mark Levin has sacrificed his integrity by using sophistry for reasons about which we can only guess. Many have similar question about what caused Justice Roberts to confirm Obama, who never claimed to be a natural born citizen. The fix was in. Mark’s value to influence has suffered a blow. He seems everywhere to bluster and call names, while conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen” at every opportunity. What does he really know about our legal history? Has he been told what positions he must support?
Read U.S. Naturalization code. It has been modified almost one hundred times since the 14th Amendment provided a foundation for new citizens based upon Article 1 Section 8, “...an Uniform Rule for Naturalization.” It is fascinating, but not relevant to anyone’s presidential eligibility, contrary to Mark Levin’s and Ted Cruz’ implications. If it were, Congress could simply make new law, abrogating articles and amendments as it pleased. Our framers were remarkably coherent writers. If the things you read are not clear, assume that they may not be true.
I will now take a closer look at Levin’s crusade for the application of Article V. His frantic misdirection, replacing the term natural born citizen with “citizen” at every opportunity, has cost him my trust - not that he cares. This brings more relevance to the assertion, I believe by Sam Adams, that we have created a nation built upon laws and not men. The law, if is not hidden, edited, or ignored, is still accessible. Everyone needs to read the original sources.
Another excellent post, good to see you
Can anyone explain why the general consensus was that George Romney was qualified to run for president in 1967? And if it wasn’t an obstacle for Romney then why should it be an issue for Cruz today?
Watching Levin and the others demolish their reputations like this makes you wonder why they would be a party to this deliberate obfuscation of the Constitutional law.
“Can anyone explain why the general consensus was that George Romney was qualified to run for president in 1967?”
Ignorance, partisanship, willful negligence, and apathy much like we see today combined with the willful efforts to gain power on the part of those involved, just like today. The chief difference between then and now is the greater access we have today to the original documents and laws and the far far greater ability to communicate the information to fellow citizens without censorship by the mainstream media controlled by the political masters. George Romney was far from being the first, and we’re still saddled with the consequences of the natural born citizen clause not being respected and enforced.
It’s a shame Burr didn’t shoot that low life a lot sooner.
300 Vegans and the PETA crowd will protest tomorrow that two pigs had to die to make the soccer ball Trump played with.
Well said!!!
I have been accused of being a pessimist. I define a pessimist as one who looks at a blessing and at best says it matters little, and at worst thinks it a curse.
I appreciate all my blessings, but as a realist when you have not only the liberals but many conservatives so desirous of trampling the Constitution, my conclusion can only be we are in much greater danger from just the damages wrought by the current usurper.
Cruz cannot win, he is ineligible and thus damaged. It will not pass unopposed.
Respectfully, ...
There are two types of citizenship:
1. Citizenship from birth (natural born)
2. Citizenship through naturalization
Which one is Ted Cruz? The law doesn't, and to my knowledge hasn't acknowledged, a third class of citizen (born a citizen, but not born a natural citizen.) That's clear he was born a US citizen; I don't see how it could get any more 'natural' than that.
https://my.uscis.gov/helpcenter/article/what-types-of-citizenship-are-there
Furthermore, Ted Cruz didn't need to apply for naturalization, because he was a citizen at birth. https://my.uscis.gov/helpcenter/article/what-is-naturalization
As pointed out by the Cato Institute: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3060736/posts
"No, actually, and it's not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)
What's a "natural born citizen"? The Constitution doesn't say, but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
There's no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe [Who has changed his stance now that is is politically convenient to stir the pot, I might add] and former solicitor general Ted Olson - who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility. Recall that McCain - lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later ("naturalizes") or who isn't a citizen at all - can be president.
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That's an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
The law has been fairly consistent on the matter and as is understood today is very clear. It is sad to see conservatives suckered into trying to grasp the 'nuances of the situation' by people who believe the Constitution is a living document and would use it as toilet paper given the chance. And now they are the experts!?
Jim Robinson said it much more eloquently than I can so I'll quote him here. "...I have infinitely more confidence in Mark Levin and the CATO Institute than I do in legions of internet sea lawyers and bloggers." and I personally add Democrat 'constitutional' experts to that list. As in so many other cases (1st amendment, 2nd amendment, commerce clause, illegal search and seizure etc.) the liberals in this country have twisted, stretched, spit on, and drilled holes in the constitution's words and intention to deny American Citizen (of all kinds) their God given Liberty.
Now that it is politically expedient for them, they now want to bend and twist and try and drag their preferred meaning from what the founders might have meant, thought, and had for breakfast in 1795. After shoving Barrack Hussein Obummer down our throats like an apple in a roasted pig's snout: I DON'T THINK SO.
Had Cruz been born in 1921 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1922, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.
Ted says he is a Conservative who supports the Original Intent of the Constitution. Only by treating the Constitution as a “living document” is he eligible to run for President. Do you see the problem here?
OK so Original Intent is something we can discard if it goes against what we want. How is that respecting the law?
You are proposing 3 classes of citizenship.
No Idaho_Cowboy, I’m not. Since you have covered most of the talking points used to confuse those who haven’t time or inclination to read more deeply, I’ll address your tactics.
There are two classes of citizenship, distinguished by the Constitutional provisions justifying their creation. Natural born citizen is the only class of citizenship defined by the Constitution, and has not changed two hundred twenty six years. Naturalization is the province of Congress, provide by Article 1 Section 8, “Shall...create an Uniform Rule for Naturalization.” Congress cannot, either directly or by implication affect Constitutional interpretation. Citizenship at birth is not natural born citizenship, and was created by U.S. Code: “8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.”
Ted Cruz was naturalized at birth, like every anchor baby, like child of Islamic terrorists, born on our soil, like the child of Mexican illegal immigrants, Sudanese illegal immigrants. The definitions of those deemed “citizens at birth” have changed at least fifty times, hardly a recipe for confidence in someone who would a a commander-in-chief for what may still be the most potent military force in the world. Cruz, much as I like many of the position he takes, has exposed great doubts about his eligibility for any government office by willfully misinterpreting the Constitution, a violation of his oath as an officer of the Court.
The discussions around what Larry Tribe and Ted Olson said are surprising considering Larry’s objective, Larry on Obama’s campaign committee, and the objective of SR 511 a political statement of why John McCain, whose eligibility was taken apart by Democrats after the 2000 presidential campaign, were making talking points to silence challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Obama was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2678, Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens Natural Born Citizen Act, February 2008, which FAILED to pass. So Obama’s co-sponsor, Clair McCaskill, along with Pat Leahy, cooked up SR 511, the Senator John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen Resolution.
The legal obfuscation used by Tribe, also used by Mark Levin, is to cite, as you did, the 1st Congress’ Naturalization Act, which argued that overseas born children of two parent citizens should be “considered” natural born citizens. Larry is more careful than to suggest that act suggests that the Supreme Court really meant to make someone with McCain’s problem eligible to the presidency. The problem, not mentioned in Larry and Ted’s letter to the Senate Committee is that the 1790 Naturalization act (note the word “Naturalization”) was entirely revoked by Madison and Washington, and replace with the word “Citizen”. The phrase “Natural Born Citizen” has never again appeared in any congressional act.
If you aren’t reading from talking points distributed to Internet activists, and read the minutes of the Senate Record, you’ll recall Judge Michael Chertoff saying: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,†Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,†said Leahy.â€
You are suggesting that a 1940 Nationality Act can amend the Constitution?
I have great respect for this forum provided by Mr. Robinson, respectful of what is perhaps our most important Amendment, the 1st. I too have, until recently, found the Cruz positions closest to my own. But to dissemble about the Constitution, the clear discussion in the first five submissions to the Federalist Papers of the risk of usurpation by foreign powers, is very disappointing.
Mark Levin, all of whose books I have purchased and read, is daily calling people names, conflating citizens with natural born citizens. Who can know what motivates him? We don’t know why Justice Roberts re-wrote the Obamacare defense statement. Who can know why Roberts didn’t ask Obama, who told us he was “A native-born citizen of the U.S.”, but did not claim natural born citizenship, if he was a natural born citizen. American Indians were native-born, but not citizens. Obama was made a citizen by the 14th Amendment; his mother was a citizen so he is. A few decades earlier and Obama would have been born an alien. By definition Obama, Cruz, Jindal, and Nikki Haley are all citizens at birth by the 14th Amendment.
Time will tell, but Haley is now being touted as a VP. If Cruz, or Rubio are paired with Haley, one word from anyone in Congress (others may have standing, but I’m not an attorney), by Amendment XX Congress will get to choose the next president. Congress may be controlled by Republicans, but not conservative Republicans. This could be a power play by the real power brokers in the background. We wanted the ideas touted by Cruz. It cannot be a coincidence that after Trump, our most popular nominees are all naturalized citizens. Obama was admitted because McCain had problems which no one, after Nathan Deal was silenced by the IRS and resigned, becoming Georgia’s governor, to avoid certain bankruptcy, would address. Obama’s patent ineligibility has provided an opportunity for those not in the public eye to put people they control into positions of power, the power to direct trillions of dollars of investment capital, and perhaps, to strengthen some global political interests.
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.