Posted on 02/10/2016 1:55:32 PM PST by drewh
With Ted Cruz the victor of the first contest of the GOP nominating calendar, we can no longer avoid the question mischievously posed by Donald Trump: Is Cruz ineligible to be president? Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. The Constitution says that only a “natural born citizen†can be president. Is Cruz a natural born citizen? (You may recall that before he attacked Cruz on this front, Trump spent months flogging a ludicrous version of this critique against President Obama, who was actually born in the United States, unlike Cruz.)
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 statute—in 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 bornâ€â€”not born in the United States—he is ineligible for the presidency, under the most plausible interpretation of the Constitution.
And where is there an opinion of the Supreme Court that agrees with what you say?
The Constitution has been subverted — it is a done deal. The means(The Constitution)was created to bring about and preserve an end (Freedom). If Thomas Jefferson cannot convince you that freedom supersedes the means to obtain that end, I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you either. Serve the means if you must, and serve your masters in Washington D.C.; As for me, I will seek the end. Being that subversives in power are now in control of the means, we are at the point you and I will soon have no option but to choose one or the other.
I’ve been looking for this!
Oh, I think Romney WAS “illegible”— virtually unreadable as to how or why he would be ever considered a conservative (to include his vast offshore holdings, and frankly, having never worked at a job (exception religious proselytizing required by his church as a teen) in his life. And also, quite foolish using the “47%” commentary that shot his campaign to a large extent. No doubt a nice guy and a businessman.
Quite true— and it did NOT stop obamaumao’s “election” by the House of Saud.
Exactly, if Trump believes this, then why isn’t he hammering Marco?
Hmmmmm
Oh yes— let’s have our elections decided by judges appointed for LIFE. Complete the Banana Republic approach to the “rule of law” as opposed to the consent of the governed.
Let’s ask Bloomberg— who seems to think he can just “step in”. No one— certainly not repubs, EVER challenged obamaumao— and there was much to work with (especially ex post facto on the reality of his... “reign”).
“Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born,”
Nope, they were made citizens by the statutes you just quoted. That makes them naturalized. Natural born citizens need no statutes.
Attacking the messenger is an automatic concession that you can’t refute the argument.
As to justices deciding: Are you suggesting that the opinion, per Marshall, J., in Marbury v. Madison can be ignored and constitutional questions can be decided on the basis of a popular vote? It is Marshall, by the way, who, in his concurring opinion in The Venus quoted Vattel at some length on the relevant point.
You are going out of your way to ignore a power specifically invested by the framers with Congress.
The ONLY constitutional limits to Congress’s authority to set the rules of naturalization is found in Article 4 Section 2 and in the 14th Amendment (reestablishing jus soli as one of the means of citizenship at birth).
If the repeal and replacement of 1790 by 1795 is valid, then the repeal and replacement of 1795 is just as valid AS IS ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT repeals and replacements which leads us to Title 8 Section 1401.
Whew!
You're much better than most of us, if you can remember what Trump actually "has said (or Tweeted, or emailed or posted on his Facebook, or repeated from the stage, what some member of his audience has said, that he agrees with) on any given day," much less what Trump said before tossing his hat in the race, last June, six, nine, twelve or eighteen months, before that!
One could believe in almost anything, maybe not the Flat Earth Society and some where, some time, Donald agrees with you!
“And where is there an opinion of the Supreme Court that agrees with what you say?”
Any Supreme Court decision that is not 9-0 is a political act. Even some 9-0 decisions can be political.
soetoro, on the other hand, would not be a citizen if born outside US jurisdiction. His mother did not meet the requirements to transfer citizenship according to federal law at the time of his birth
If soetoro was born in Hawaii, which I doubt, he was a citizen according to a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amend. Which is what gives us anchor babies.
I believe that the Founders and the authors of the 14th Amend argued against conferring citizenship to children of foreign nationals, with no allegiance go the US who happened to be born on US soil.
Now if soetoro's real father is Frank Marshall Davis....
You still miss the point. The constitutional authority of Congress to set rules for naturalization has nothing whatsoever to do with the intention behind the selection of the words “natural born citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause of Article II of the Constitution. Have you ever had to brief or argue a constitutional question in a court on this point? Have you ever dealt with naturalization before a forum as opposed to interpreting language in the Constitution? They are two entirely different things.
That’s my point. Obama would not have transferred citizenship so he had to fake birth certificate. Cruz is natural born via his mom no need to fake anything.
So it is your position that, as part of the rule of law, a citizen can ignore any decision of the Supreme Court and choose not to obey it, with the possible exception of a unanimous opinion. Try that and see how it works out, why don’t you?
I’ve learned not to trust them.
:?)
” a citizen can ignore any decision of the Supreme Court and choose not to obey it, “
Is that what you read in my post? I actually said, any decision that is not 9-0 is political. PERIOD. I didn’t say anything about obeying anything.
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.