Posted on 02/09/2016 6:22:54 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
The words natural born citizen, and their original meaning at the time that this constitutional clause was crafted, go a long way to answering this question. In founding-era America, like today, a person could be a citizen by virtue of birth on American territory; a citizen by virtue of a statute that granted citizenship to him at birth; a "naturalized" citizen, meaning one who entered the country as an alien but later obtained citizenship via a process determined by law; and a foreigner.
A natural born citizen cannot be a foreigner. Foreigners are not citizens. A natural born citizen cannot be a person who was naturalized. Those people are not born citizens; they're born aliens. Most important for the purposes of the Cruz question, a natural born citizen cannot be someone whose birth entitled him to citizenship because of a statuteâin this case a statute that confers citizenship on a person born abroad to an American parent. In the 18th century, as now, the word natural meant "in the regular course of things." Then, as now, almost all Americans obtained citizenship by birth in this country, not by birth to Americans abroad. The natural way to obtain citizenship, then, was (and is) by being born in this country. Because Cruz was not "natural born" -- not born in the United States -- he is ineligible for the presidency, under the most plausible interpretation of the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
People think that lawyers, judges, and pundits know the law. Lawyers are trained to defeat the law in law school. When they can’t, they become judges. At no time in that process do they study the Constitution in a thoughtful manner. How else do we arrive to 2016 with “birthright citizenship” and Canadians running for president. Cruz memorized the Constitution at an early age, but this is not synonymous with understanding. It is deeply disappointing to me that he has joined the chorus of mindless chattering knownothings in their quest to reduce the Constitution to anachronistic drivel.
I take it that it was not a vaginal birth.
Only those that are born within the US, have their grandparents as citizens, and only those that own lands are natural born citizen. The rest of them are hereby indentured servants or slaves.
— Sincerely your colonial administrator.
I loved the 5th grade too, but I moved on.
the media needs to stop trying to tear down Ted Cruz because there needs to be some equal “fact” to the FACT that dark devilish Hussein Muhammed bin Obama was born in Kenya.
What’s not funny is when Freepers turn their back on the Constitution.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)
Cases citing Fiallo v. Bell
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
Kagan, arguing to SCOTUS as Solicitor General in Flores-Villar v. United States (2010)
Thomas v. Lynch - 5th Circuit - August 7, 2015 - 14-60297
Here is his main reasoning:
“a natural born citizen cannot be someone whose birth entitled him to citizenship because of a statute...”
Well, I would tell him that you can argue that EVERYTHING in the constitution is a statute, including the line that says ‘natural born’ means being only born on USA soil. So his reasoning is flawed to begin with.
Regardless of the source, the article is correct in its essential details.
Then you don't understand the meaning of the words "constitution" nor "statute."
Meow.
I will admit that Slate running a piece that uses the word “alien” is amusing as all heck.
I thought that term was verboten with the Left. Under penalty of public shaming and humiliation.
Natural law is not a statute.
I know, but I'm just pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the left.
Has slate ever written anything that is true?
In order for a law to have ANY meaning, people have to agree what words mean.
If you read Alice In Wonderland, the caterpillar would say that words only mean what he says they mean. The judge in this case is using the same reasoning. It does not make any difference what you or I think, it only matters to the judge.
However, in the article, Posner cites approvingly the following article which argues from original intent a broader view of the phrase “natural born.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712485
Not that I can remember, but even a blind squirrel may find an acorn once in awhile.
If Cruz/s parents declared US citizenship for him in Canada, then he has a document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.....the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate.
Cruz either has one from the time of his birth or he does not. If he does not, then he is NOT a US Citizen....as he was never naturalized by his own admission.
More importantly, Canada, ruz/s birthplace did not recognize dual nationality. So it appears Cruz schemed to dupe Texas voters by the charade of renouncing his Canadian citizenship (after the Dallas Morning News exposed him).
Cruz either has that Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which is his legal proof of US Citizenship, or he doesn't.
Would appear his parents never applied for it....making Cruz a bonafide Canadian.
Significantly, Canada prohibited dual nationality at the time of Cruz/s birth.
If Cruz can/t produce Consular Report of Birth Abroad, there's a little problem with the US Senate office Cruz holds now (and was elected to under false pretenses) .......not to mention his aspirations to be US President. (hat tip Market-ticker.org/Karl Denninger)
The Texas voters he represents have a gripe or two, as well.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712485
He goes off the rails in the synopsis. No need to read the body of his essay.
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.