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.
Can you read and understand English?
And that is where you are going wrong. The authority is NOT "path to citizenship" the authority is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is FAR MORE than just the power to naturalize or a path to citizenship.
The rule of naturalization includes:
Rules that govern who is able to be naturalized
Rules that govern who can never be naturalized
Rules about how to apply for naturalization
Rules on how citizens give up their citizenship
Rules on the process and procedures on how an alien becomes naturalized
Rules on who does not need to be naturalized
Rules on who is a citizen at birth by the circumstances of their birth (naturally born a citizen)
And that is where you are going wrong. The authority is NOT "path to citizenship" the authority is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is FAR MORE than just the power to naturalize or a path to citizenship.The rule of naturalization includes:
Rules that govern who is able to be naturalized
Rules that govern who can never be naturalized
Rules about how to apply for naturalization
Rules on how citizens give up their citizenship
Rules on the process and procedures on how an alien becomes naturalized
Rules on who does not need to be naturalized
Rules on who is a citizen at birth by the circumstances of their birth (naturally born a citizen)
Where do you get this crap from? Have you even read the Federalist Papers?
You are literally begging to be treated like a serf from an imperial Congress. You should stop posting comments for a while, sober up if you are drinking, or hit the books if you are not. The entire Federalist Papers were written with people like you in mind, those who would sacrifice liberty for whatever selfish agenda is ruling them.
Yes he’s a natural born citizen.
SO every kid fathered by every American serviceman in every foreign country are all NBC’s? If So, we might as well tear up the consitution.
Allegedly.
You’re correct about not being interested in “nominating sure losers.” Dole, McCain, Romney.....”
I’ve often wondered why McCain and Romney did not sue Buckwheat on the NBC issue. They both were denied the Presidency due to obama’s victory, and therefore had “standing”. If they had, and exposed the usurper, everything would be different....everything.
Yes they could be if all requirements are met.
Rather than resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should try to actually use the Constitution for your sources and logic in your attempt to refute my assertions. But until you are willing to do so, there is no need for further communication.
He's a Cubanadian.
I think Rubio is not an NBC. That flies directly in the face of the importance of American citizenship and keeping out people who might very well grow up with loyalty to countries other than the U.S. because of their foreign parents.
The problem is the democrats control the courts.
I've often wondered why McCain and Romney did not sue Buckwheat on the NBC issue. They both were denied the Presidency due to obama's victory, and therefore had "standing". If they had, and exposed the usurper, everything would be different....everything.
One word, Kennedy, as in Justice Kennedy, one of the dumbest members of that Court yet seen, perhaps only Souter was more idiotic.
Of course they also had to consider Roberts, as in Chief Justice Roberts, the only Court member who has sufficient existing evidence for blackmail to be a plausible method of coercion. Thank you Bush43 and Ted Cruz for inflicting this menace on America.
Even if there was a path to a decision with adequate "standing" according to Roberts, we face the dismal prospect of having SIX of nine justices unfit to clerk in a boondock county courthouse, let alone be trusted with interpreting John Jay's contribution to Article II Section 1 qualifications of the President.
Ironically, I feel that Roberts accidentally came to the best answer by punting it back to We The People to kick around for ourselves. I cannot think of a reason to entrust that Court with something this monumental. So perhaps it is best left alone.
Thoughtful summation...thanks. Interesting times we live in.
Rather than resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should try to actually use the Constitution for your sources and logic in your attempt to refute my assertions. But until you are willing to do so, there is no need for further communication.
I "communicated" all the facts to you above in #256 which decimate your inane arguments about Congress deciding who is NBC. You are factually wrong on all the merits, and Madison himself was talking about you when they revised the earlier statute you cited.
Don't bother trying to play victim now. The Constitution is serious business and your feelings are irrelevant to me. You spread nonsense and falsehoods about Congressional authority, and your willingness to entertain an imperial Congress is precisely what the Founders warned about. I suggest hitting the books and then returning with a mea culpa. This is your Constitution too.
Rather than resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should try to actually use the Constitution for your sources and logic in your attempt to refute my assertions. But until you are willing to do so, there is no need for further communication.
I forgot to ask, what name calling and ad hominem attacks and in what comment? Please cite.
Remember, at least I do, McCain declared he would NOT criticize Obama - on anything when he was the candidate and since that time (in 2008) he has yet to do so!
Romney, for his part tried to criticize Obama during the 2012 election but got bitch-slapped by Candy Crowley, of all things during a debate and never again had the nerve to try again!
I'm certain that all the "know-it-all" 30-somethings at the RNC told both candidates never to confront Obama as he is black and the moderates in both parties don't like to hear such things!!
The only people that "don't like to hear such things" are the other 30-something "metrosexual males" and the Obama campaign!
And assuming for the sake of argument that Congress has the power to declare aliens to be naturally born citizens, none of that is a limitation on establishing rules on who is a citizen at birth by the circumstances of their birth.
You said, in the first place, "There is NO LIMIT ON THIS AUTHORITY other than Article 4 Section 2 and the 14th Amendment." I asserted that Art IV Sec 2 and the 14th amendment do not limit the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
Your list has some other errors, but that's okay with me.
There are many SCOTUS decision where 9 of 9 justices necessarily operate from the premise that a person born abroad is an alien, unless naturalized by Congress. You are probably unable to understand that, and so you will reword your criteria for finding that rule of law to be settled.
By the rule of law applied by SCOTUS, children born to US military stationed overseas are naturalized, and in some cases, not citizens at all. Thomas v. Lynch - 5th Circuit - August 7, 2015 - 14-60297.
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.