Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
— And I see it says anyone born on American soil is possibly a natural-born American citizen, regardless of their parents’ status. —
A quick and dirty paraphase no doubt. Folks here aren’t composing formal legal argument. The cosntitutional condition is at least “subject to the jurisdiction,” and whether or not that includes invaders is an open question.
I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about. I was talking about a SC ruling passage on who is a citizen quoted to me here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3382753/posts?page=388#388
This is in my response to my request for NBC to be defined, since the claim was it was obvious what it was.
But this SC ruling passage, as I noted in this post, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3382753/posts?page=390#390, doesn’t speak on some different but common possible scenarios. So it isn’t a complete definition, and doesn’t really say anything on many of the less clear cases.
1/12/2016, 9:09:36 PM · 388 of 401
ROCKLOBSTER to Faith Presses On
>>>People who say Cruz isn’t eligible aren’t going by the law but their interpretation of it
You mean like the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Waite:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Minor v Happersett (1879)
I was talking about the (your) sentence I blockquoted, in particular the “regardless of their parents’ status” part. If you read the 14th amendment, you will see that the parents status is whatever “subject to the jurisdiction” means. That question is a hot issue right now, highly unsettled. The government wants to make everybody but diplomats in the group of “subject to the jurisdiction”, while the authors meant it to mean, roughly, legal residents who have an obligation to the government (tax, draft, etc.).
From the Wikipedia page on the SC ruling, which had to do with women’s suffrage. In discussing that, the opinion went over the matter of who was a citizen:
“The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”[12] The court observed that some authorities “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett
The case doesn't help Cruz, unless a person uses intellectual dishonesty to twist the case.
The case does have some bearing on the question of NBC status for native-born persons, as well as on just plain citizen status for native-born people.
Okay, but did you read back the discussion we were having?
I said NBC was vague in the Constitution, and RL replied that it was obvious so there was no need for more definition. So I asked for one, and RL gave me a passage from a SC ruling.
But I noted that it wasn’t comprehensive as it didn’t answer some questions, and if it was a definition (as it was in a SC ruling), it only said this on children of non-citizen parents and citizenship: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
“I have posted for the better part of two days on several threads the information on Vattel, Law of Nations, Geo.Washington, Benj. Franklin, John Jay, and other sources including Supreme Court cases. The “scattershot set of comments†are merely some of my reasons why I stopped supporting Cruz”
I wasn’t the one who brought up Minor v Happersett.
But again, it neither hurts nor helps him. It simply doesn’t provide answers on certain questions. The woman involved in Minor v Happersett had two American citizen parents, born on the soil, apparently, so the question wasn’t gone into any further.
Levin is a constitutional scholar, and I’ll take his word.
It defined in writing, the meaning of NBC, the position of the full court in 1874. That is a pretty historic piece of documentation, and not just some partisan-hack newspaper editor spouting off.
no mention of what happens when parent is a natural-born American citizen and one isn't....You brought up to me that Cruz's father wasn't an American citizen, as if, then, that was relevant to his NBC status.
It is.
Not only is his father not a natural born citizen, he isn't any kind of US Citizen. If he was at least naturalized, the argument would be difficult.
what does him not thinking much of it matter, since it is indeed primarily how citizenship is being established - birth on American soil without respect to the citizenship status of either parent.
That is also not cut and dried, since the 14th Amendment was written to grant citizenship to children of former slaves, not create anchor babies...who then think they can run for president.
I mentioned in my post that I didn't, and gave the excuses that I was tired and lazy.
I don't differ with your take on Happersett. I thought I was helping by connecting your view (nothing in there about the status of the parents) with the "subject to the jurisdiction" thing (which is a status of the parents qualifier) that appears in the 14th amendment. That was the only point of my post.
On that point I would bring up the wording “unasked.” I believe Canada awards citizenship to newborns automatically, but do not know the qualifying conditions, so cannot comment.
Cruz cannot convince me that he didn’t know he was a Canadian citizen until 2013. I believe he knew it and concealed it from the voters. Certainly, if he did not, he isn’t as smart as some try to make us think. He knew he was born in Canada but didn’t know he was a Canadian citizen for forty years? Come on!
Other constitutional scholars disagree so why would you take Levin’s word over theirs? I’ve read his books too, but he is no God.
You are correct.
I’d also like everyone to know I’m not attacking Cruz, his qualification and attitude are outstanding. I think he’d make a fine AG and/or Chief Justice.
Molly, It is for those who claim Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen to prove their case. In doing so, you will have to disprove all of these opinions:
Ted Cruz is eligible to run and serve as the president of the USA. References:
1.http://www.westernfreepress.com/…/the-top-ten-birther-argu…/
2.http://www.cato.org/…/comment…/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
3.http://legalinsurrection.com/…/natural-born-citizens-marco…/
4.http://www.theatlantic.com/…/would-the-founders-hav…/278917/
5. http://www.redstate.com/…/putting-ted-cruz-birtherism-to-r…/
6. http://www.westernfreepress.com/…/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible…/
7. Qualifications for President and the “NaturalBorn†Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative AttorneyNovember 14, 2011
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
8. http://www.foxnews.com/…/05/19/cruz-eligible-presidential-…/
9. http://drewmusings.wordpress.com/…/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligibl…/
10. http://ivn.us/2013/08/13/defining-natural-born-citizen/
11. https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx…;
12. https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx…;
13. http://dcxposed.com/…/the-presidential-eligibility-of-ted-…/
14. http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-…/
15. http://linkis.com/kenmcvay.com/1JKSG
16. Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.
http://www.theatlantic.com/…/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-bo…/275469/
17. MARK LEVIN: TED CRUZ IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…AND ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-…/
18. Why Ted Cruz is constitutionally qualified to be president
http://www.americanthinker.com/…/why_ted_cruz_is_constituti…;
19. A Bipartisan Study Gives the Green Light to Ted Cruz’s Ability to Run For President
http://www.ijreview.com/…/270838-bipartisan-study-gives-gr…/
20. HERE’S THE PROOF! LAW CLEARLY STATES TED CRUZ ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY ‪#‎o4a‬ ‪#‎news‬ ‪#‎TedCruz‬ ‪#‎RT‬ http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=6712
21. FACTCHECK VERDICT: YES, DONALD TRUMP, TED CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
http://www.breitbart.com/…/factcheck-verdict-yes-donald-tr…/
22. Yes, Ted Cruz Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen’
http://www.conservativehq.com/…/19983-yes-ted-cruz-%E2%80%9…;
23. Yes, Ted Cruz is Constitutionally Eligible to Be President
http://townhall.com/…/yes-ted-cruz-is-constitutionally-elig…;
24. Ted Cruz is eligible! http://harvardlawreview.org/…/on-the-meaning-of-natural-bor…;
25. Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen
www.nationalreview.com/…/4293…/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen
26. Experts Agree: Trump Is Wrong, Ted Cruz Is Eligible
www.theblaze.com/…/experts-agree-trump-is-wrong-ted-cruz-is…
27. Birther’s beware! Ted Cruz is eligible to be president!
http://sago.com/…/birthers-beware-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-b…;
And, in case you didn’t know. Ted Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Ted Cruz Renounces Newly Discovered Canadian Citizenship
http://time.com/2854513/ted-cruz-canadian-citizenship/
I appreciate your well considered articulated responses. A lot of food for thought and I’ll say that I think your points are reasonable, though I still disagree probably. Maybe I’m more of a natural stickler.
Funny thing about that, you and I probably have the same sense on that, meaning that I like Cruz, alot.
But what we actually feel isn't relevant. If an observer believes we are attacking Cruz, then to that observer, we are in fact attacking Cruz. Humorous or pathetic, depending on my mood.
So, what happens if Trump blows himself out, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all ineligible, and everyone else is just onesie-twosies...Who’s left?
OMG...it’s what’s-his-name.
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.