Posted on 03/12/2015 12:32:49 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Two of the top lawyers for the Obama and Bush administrations agree on this: Sen. Ted Cruz can become president. Legally speaking, anyway.
Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama, penned a piece for the Harvard Law Review tackling the question of what the Constitution means when it says that the president must be at least 35 years old, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”
“All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time,” they wrote. “And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”
Cruz was born in a Canadian hospital to a mother who was a U.S. citizen. But he’s only the latest potential presidential candidate who has had his qualifications questioned. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) was born in Arizona before it was a state. Gov. George Romney (R-Mich.) was delivered in Mexico to U.S. residents. All were qualified to serve, . . . .
The First Congress, they noted, established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were themselves citizens at birth “and explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born citizens.’
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Observe again the Naturalization Act of 1790 which granted Natural Born Citizen status to children of American citizens who were born outside of the U.S.
Observe, plural.
No kidding.
The point being made is that naturalization acts can and do create citizens at birth. You refuse to accept this despite overwhelming evidence.
You’ve quoted dicta from the Wong Kim Ark ruling. That opinion of Justice Gray had no bearing on the actual ruling in the appeal because Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and he could not be naturalized due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts that were the law of the land in 1898.
The Founding Fathers in Congress stated that “the children of citizens who may be born beyond the sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens.”
Yeah, the U.S. has lots of citizens, plural.
The 1790 Act is not the Act in force today, or at any time after January 29, 1795.
The 1790 Act demonstrates two things: 1) children of American citizens who were born outside of the U.S. where aliens requiring naturalization, and 2) since January 29, 1795 Congress has not enacted any Act conferring citizenship on the children of American citizens who were born outside of the U.S. as anything other than “citizen”
Congress in 1790 saw that the children of American citizens who were born outside of the U.S. where aliens requiring naturalization
Congress in 1790 saw that the children of American citizens who were born outside of the U.S. where aliens requiring naturalization - AS THEY CONTINUE TO DO.
Yeah, but neither the Kenyan nor Cruz had "them" as parents.
You just did it again.
You’re right, I refuse to accept your personal opinion.
Anyone whose citizenship status is challenged in the year 2015 or 2016 will be judged under Title 8, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code “NATIONALITY and naturalization.
I predict that Ted Cruz will qualify specifically under Section 1401, “Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth”
8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
g. “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: “
Tell it to any judge or legislator in America. If the word “two” was in front of the word parents perhaps you’d have a point.
Here’s an example from the current law (8 U.S.C. § 1401): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents [plural] one of whom [singular] is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom [singular] is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”
My “personal opinion”? It’s the opinion of the Supreme Court in citations YOU have provided!
Now here you are posting US Code and claiming that the NATURALIZATION STATUTES accreted therein and which confer citizenship at birth somehow are not Naturalization Acts of Congress.
On the other hand...(she had warts)
The date of implementation of “8 U.S.C. § 1401” ?
The plural in this case refers to all of those whose birth situation falls under that category, it does not mean two parents in a specific case. The law specifies precisely when both or either parents must meet a criterion.
Here’s an example:
Child Born Out of Wedlock
Child of a U.S. Citizen Father
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:
The provisions listed for a child born in wedlock apply to a child born out of wedlock outside of the United States claiming citizenship through a U.S. citizen father if:
•A blood relationship between the child and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence
•The child’s father was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth;
•The child’s father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age;
•One of the following criteria is met before the child reaches 18 years of age:
•The child is legitimated under the law of his or her residence or domicile
•The father acknowledges in writing and under oath the paternity of the child;
•The paternity of the child is established by adjudication of a competent court.
In addition, the residence or physical presence requirements contained in the relevant paragraph of the Immigration and Nationality Act 301 continue to apply to children born out of wedlock claiming citizenship through their fathers.
Child of a U.S. Citizen Mother
A child born out of wedlock outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:
•The child was born after December 23, 1952;
•The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; and
•The child’s U.S. citizen mother was physically present in the United States or outlying possession for one continuous year prior to the child’s birth.
June 27, 1952 and last amended on October 25, 1994.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title8/chapter12/subchapter3&edition=prelim
“If Obama was born in Canada or British East Africa, as some believe, then his situation is pretty nearly identical to that of Cruz.”
Except Obama’s mama did not meet the requirements to confer citizenship to any child born abroad at that time.
And there's your big error: Congress cannot confer the natural born status — by the Constitution they have only the power over a uniform rule of naturalization.
You have got to be kidding. Ever hear of "Kelo"? (among many others.)
The ruling in Ankeny was the unanimous opinion of a three judge state Appeals Court panel upholding the arguments of a Republican Attorney General in a midwestern state.,/i>
So? The court system is riddled with fools and idiots. It is no great trick to find three of them. We usually have four on the Supreme court.
You can go to H3ll. I have a low tolerance for idiots who think they are smart. You are just a waste of time.
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.