Posted on 01/22/2016 7:58:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The recent controversy over the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the office of the Presidency is one of those conundrums embedded in the U.S. Constitution. That august document is full of ambiguous words and phrases that challenge even the strictest and most principled interpreters. The phrase "natural born citizen" could mean any number of things. For example, at the time of birth:
1. At least one parent is a U.S. citizen.
2. Both parents are U.S. citizens.
3. The birth occurs in a state of the United States.
4. The birth occurs in a state of the United States or in a territory thereof.
There is truly unanimous agreement that if both 2 and 3 are satisfied, there is no question that the child is a "natural born" citizen. In the early days of the Republic, the parental requirement was interpreted as patrimonial. Of course at that time, citizenship was restricted to "free white persons," but a combination of the Fourteenth Amendment and various statutes have eliminated the gender issue and nowadays. I have never heard anyone try to distinguish between 1 and 2, so let us stipulate that 1 and 3 together are enough. It is nearly universally accepted that 4 is as good as 3.
That leaves us with 1 and 4 together as being sufficient for "natural born" citizenship. Beyond that, if neither parent is a citizen nor does the birth occur inside American territory, nobody would suggest that the person is a "natural born" citizen. I apologize for the preceding rather pedantic discussion, but I want to have absolute clarity on the key question. That question is:
"Does either having one American parent or suitable geographic location by itself qualify?"
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
> “Does either having one American parent or suitable geographic location by itself qualify?”
No.
At least 3 weeks later, still being written about.
Not if the mom had a Caesarian.
RE: At least 3 weeks later, still being written about.
Yes because there has been no official resolution and there’s a pending lawsuit by Democrats.
SEE HERE:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/27/alan-grayson-ill-file-suit-if-canadian-ted-cruz-wi/
Har har.
Amazing.. People actually think the Framers put in a meaningless clause.
Then who was Cruz citing in the debate about Trump's mother disqualifying him under some interpretations?
It behooves Cruz to have a decision made. There are laws passed by congress on the issue. It’s the interpretation that seems to confuse the issue. This needs a legal challenge
The standard of NBC was redefined and lowered by Obamugabe.
Get over it and BTW, Angela Merkel for POTUS!
The author left out #5 which was established by Congress in the very first Natualization Act of 1790:
5) Born to a US citizen parent beyond the shores of the US
This article like so many others is fully of obvious wrongs. It is in fact doubted that only one U.S. citizen parent could be sufficient. The Framers were trying to prevent people with potentially divided loyalties from ascending to our version of the throne. Dual citizenship is the very definition of divided loyalties.
legal definitions and legal terms dictionary
A naturalized citizen is a person who was born an alien, but has lawfully become a citizen of the United States under the U.S. Constitution and laws.
Cruz was born an alien but made a citizen through law (Congress).
Natural born is simplicity itself. It is an absolute and unquestionable citizenship simply because there are no others to choose from.
If you are speaking specifically wrt Ted Cruz points 1 and 2 are irrelevant because Calgary, Alberta, Canada is neither a US state or a territory of the United States.
Well folks, I actually read the article, and it says that “natural born citizen” means what Congress says it means. If the Congress certifies the votes from the electors for Ted Cruz, then he is a “natural born citizen”. If they don’t certify, then he is not. Since everyone in Congress just LOVES Ted Cruz, there shouldn’t be any problem.
Here’s an article that will reveal how the courts would view the issue if it ever reaches the courts. I doubt that the courts will ever touch the question for various reasons.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
I don’t think Cruz has any allegiance to Canada, but if he gets approval/clearance on NBC, that could open the door to someone who doesn’t have our best interests at heart. Like someone born in a muslim country to an American mother. We should be as cautious as we can be on the qualifications to run for president.
Probably because it was repealed in 1795 by another naturalization act.
There is more than one pending suit. There are probably 20.
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.