Posted on 01/11/2016 6:52:52 PM PST by PJBankard
Based on the current knowledge of Ted Cruz's citizenship, would Ted Cruz be considered eligible for the presidency at the time of our Founding Fathers (1788 - 1840).
Facts About Ted Cruz:
1) Mother was U.S. Citizen
2) Father was a foreign Citizen
3) Born in Foreign Country (Canada was a British Colony at the time)
4) Held Dual Citizenship
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.
Where were all you concern trolls in 07?
All of them were born British Subjects and none of them were born in the United States of America.
I had the same arguments against Obama.
Jim, has your position changed in regard to the eligibility of Ted Cruz and your attitude towards those who claim he isn’t?
They weren’t born in the United States because there was no United States at the time to be born in. They were Original Citizens and as such were eligible under the so-called “Grandfather Clause.” There would be no natural born citizens eligible for close to a generation due to the age requirement.
So do you believe that the children of women soldiers born while their mothers are serving overseas aren’t natural born citizens?
Thanks for posing this terrific question. It seems that Cruz would not have been eligible for POTUS back in the time of Adams and Jefferson if natural born means, as I have always understood it to mean, to be born within the United States. Of course, circumstances have led to many treatises on what it does mean over the traverse of time, with foreign Army bases and what not, and none of us actually know what it means, now. Again, thanks.
That being said remember if we are talking about the time of the founding then he would be eligible because he would be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption the NBC requirement did not apply. One need only be a citizen at that time. This is assuming of course the framers would have considered Cruz a citizen due to his mothers status which that itself may even be questionable.
Cruz is eligible.
I agree.
Staring down these simple facts that he is ineligible by the Constitutional requirement. I love Ted but let’s put him on the Supreme Court. If we let this go we will be subjected to another jihad leader in no time via precedent setting.
There is no way he is NBC.....
I guess you missed the premise of this idiot's vanity article.
They exempted themselves in the writing. This has been covered.
Nice!
“At this point, what difference does it make?”
Ha. Seriously, I don’t think the answer to this question actually matters one way or the other.
I don’t think it will be addressed, which may be a shame because I think we’re going to see more candidates with similar situations in the future.
The point of bringing up this whole issue is to use it strategically in the war of patriots vs. useful pawns of tyrants.
Just raising the question plants that little seed of doubt, which is all they need/want to accomplish their goal here, mainly distract, keep the enemy busy with having to deal with one “issue” after another.
That is not to say I think he is a NBC or not. I’m more concerned with them using it as a strategic weapon in the war against Liberty and the common man (us), and it’s sad that they, at times, so easily succeed.
Is FreeRepublic not a site that supports the preservation of the Constitution and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers?
I proposed a question that is based on the intent and wisdom and the Founding Fathers and our Constitution, and I’m criticized and threatened for such a positioned.
These people were the Son's of former citizens of Great Britain.
I think that if Ted Cruse has a Mother or Father who was a U.S. citizen he should be eligible to be President of the United States. After All Obama’s election to that Position seems to have validated that already.
What does women soldiers overseas have to do with Cruz being eligible for President during the time of our founding fathers?
Yes reading is the key to comprehension. The text reads:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization†(March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Note the use of the words “free white person”. That does not mean father only. Further on, it reads “the children of such person so naturalized” ... again, not based on father only. In fact, when it comes to the relevant section about being born beyond the see, the words are “And the children of citizens” ... again, not based on the father only.
In fact, the ONLY time the father is mentioned is as a restriction on those who’s fathers never resided in the United States. Of course, we know that Sen Cruz’s father DID reside in the United States prior to traveling to Canada.
So like you said ... reading is the key to comprehension.
Then why are you letting this forum become "Cruz is not Eligible" Central?
After the ratification of the Constitution but while the founding fathers were still alive. Which is why I stipulated the dates of 1788 to 1840. The last founding father died in 1841.
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.