Posted on 02/10/2016 1:55:32 PM PST by drewh
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born†citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth†or “at birth,†either by being born “in†the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.†Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien†required to go through the legal process of “naturalization†to become a U.S. citizen.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Now that I have answered your question, answer one for me. Do you even know where the Natural Born Citizen clause originates from? I mean who instigated it and why?
The term "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution.( snip because of all the messy unicode chars )
So the answer to my clear question is *no*, you have no idea where it originates from and its original intent. That's all you had to say. You need not quote some modern revisionism ( "weight of legal and historical authority" ) attempting to define NBC when the original intent of the clause is readily available and has been for at least eight years. I mean, "Original Intent" was the point of your posts correct?
Article II Facts :: Constitutional Convention.
Alexander Hamilton's suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
John Jay wrote a letter to General Washington, the President of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention ...
"Permit me to hint, whether it would 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."
General Washington handed the suggestion to the framers and the rest is history. As we are talking original intent, no "weight of legal and historical authority" is required to get this far. This is about "foreigners".
Eight years ago, despite legal challenges to Barry, the first known case of a half-foreigner, ( and thanks to the failure of a single one of the 538 electors to stand up, and of VP Cheney to assert his power as President of the Senate ) the Supreme Court chose to punt this back to us to decide for ourselves. This is where we are now.
So, what constitutes a foreigner? That is really the question at hand. A person born outside one of the United States is obviously a foreigner. A person born of a foreign parent is at least one half foreigner ( unless you want to make believe that other half does not exist or is trumped by the USA half ). To say there merely requires a drop of USA citizen DNA is to also say that eventually the entire world will be NBC once enough time elapses.
Of this situation is where the simple proposition that a Natural Born Citizen is the offspring of USA citizens born in the USA. It is not a figment of our imaginations. It is the only algorithm that yields a clean solution. Sticking with the boolean model ...
USA born AND citizen mother AND citizen father = NBC
... has inexplicably been altered and bastardized, diluting the requirements for the highest office in the land to ...
USA born OR citizen mother OR citizen father = NBC
And that is where we are now in our enlightened modern age thanks to Barry, McCain, Romney, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and their sycophant followers and the enemedia. And no-one can provide evidence of similar cases from earlier elections aside from Goldwater and Chester A. Arthur. It must be a huge coincidence, right? Wrong. It is severe revisionism.
On top of all that we are left with the ridiculous proposition that people like myself 3/3 NBC is actually equal to 2/3 NBC like Barry or McCain, or even to 1/3 NBC like Cruz or Rubio. This is an attack on Americanism, a truly globalist agenda.
All that is left is to now get those 0/3 NBC people qualified. And guess what? We're almost there already thanks to the two steps now acceptable to many folks. The question becomes, just how long can our Constitution really survive such revisionism?
( pinged a couple others for their Constitutional insight )
If you didn't get it then, you're not gonna get it now.
Maybe sometime in 2019...
By golly, you really don't have a sense of humor, do you?
Well I've got a wickedly awesome sense of humor, ask anyone. When I miss a joke there is no-one harder on myself than ... myself.So can you please point out the joke I missed?
If you didn't get it then, you're not gonna get it now.Maybe sometime in 2019...
Please don't make assumptions about me, you'll most likely be wrong.
If there was a joke that I missed then please explain it. I'm lost on this back and forth with you. The only thing I can guess is that you are hinting that Cruz was joking? I just don't see it. So please explain.
Absolutely correct.Please add that the Law of Nations by E. Vattel is referred to in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. The work has been clearly mentioned and used to set the parameters in offenses to be judged by the courts.
It is not a small, obscure thing, as THE RIGHT TO DECLARE WAR FOLLOWS in clause 11.
Clause 12 is the right to raise an Army, and clause 13 is to provide and maintain a Navy.
Obviously the Law of Nations, by being noted as an exact title, is NOT to be so easily dismissed as some would have us do.
Thank you for the ping. I appreciate it.
Of course, it was a joke.
If you didn't get it at the time, I don't know what to tell you.
BRAVO!
Very well said!
In fact, can you see why his attempting that line of humor says something very different about Mr. Cruz to those who aren't laughing?
Sure, it's "not funny" if a.) you're a humorless Trump supporter, b.) a self-righteous gritted-teeth birther...or c.) both.
I was born here in the USA to citizen parents.
No matter what Ted Cruz says to potential donors and voters, my citizenship is different than his.
My mother was a natural born American citizen.I don't have a problem considering Ted Cruz a citizen, same as me, but his citizenship is NOT the same as mine.
My father was a natural born American citizen.I was born here, in the the United States of America, and have never been a citizen of any other nation.
His comes with all sorts of potential legal, national, ideological and philosophical baggage my citizenship does not have.
Teddy Cruz can call himself and his citizenship whatever he likes, but he can't call his citizenship the same as mine or my parent's.
His citizenship is not the same as mine. It is NOT the same.
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said,
"every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Aristotle said,
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
Ted Cruz, the lawyer, just babbles...
What is telling is what your list of choices says about you and calumny and that you might do well to rethink your approach.
From one soul to another?
Think of all of this as being a test, then reconsider Proverbs 6:16-19.
Was talking about Arthur not obamaumao. The entire concept of “standing” needs to be taken out and washed. Total horsecrap. The People of the United States— the citizens— they have the standing instead of this “legalese”. They have the standing and will TAKE it from this “rule by judges” socialist state. Consent of the governed... we write the laws, not them.
All of those comprise Mr. Cruz’s Bona Fides as a conservative. Every single loser RINO tells us Cruz is a loser.
And Jimmah Cahhhtah says “Trump is malleable”— and “Cruz is not”..... that clinches it. Carter was one lying SOB and literally hated in Georgia... to this day- him and his coke sniffing, slumlord bankers and middle eastern/oil middlemen, and.. lest we forget.. Bert Lance and BCCI. Real bank scandal scum. That Carter tells us this corruption runs deep and cannot stand up to Cruz.
Arthur's case is fascinating. He, of course, appointed Gray, who wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark. After studying it closely I come to the conclusion that Gray would have liked to let Arthur totally off the hook but came to the conclusion that he could not muster a majority if he did. As it was there was a strong dissent which, correctly, I believe, pointed out that the concept of an American federal law was distinct from English law under our federal system at the time of the Founding.
Gray mentioned the Article II eligibility clause in his opinion but did not purport to decide anything about it. He apparently wanted to give Arthur some cover given the concern about Arthur's status being voiced at the time but knew he could not go all the way to make the cover complete.
As it was he got away with upending the actual understanding of the Framers with regard to English law as it affected American federal, constitutional law.
As it stands, however, Cruz' eligibility under Article II is not affected by the Wong Kim Ark decision because even under the concepts of English law Cruz was not, by virtue of his birth in Canada to a Cuban father,under the "sovereignty" of our federal government.
Amen!
Canada has odd rules about citizenship, but Cruz left Canada while still in short pants and his parents were there in the first place because they were working. He’s been a Texan practically his whole life. Where’s his loyalty to Canada? Please point it out. So like I said, take it to court and get the decision made. Everything else is conjecture.
All the rest of your “questions” have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Canada has odd rules about citizenship, but Cruz left Canada while still in short pants and his parents were there in the first place because they were working. He's been a Texan practically his whole life. Where's his loyalty to Canada? Please point it out. So like I said, take it to court and get the decision made. Everything else is conjecture.All the rest of your "questions" have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Well Maggie, if you could be bothered to quote what you are replying to it would be easier to make sense of this.
First of all I never questioned the loyalty of Ted Cruz anywhere, not a single time. You must be thinking of someone else.
As far as the questions I asked, they *do* matter, which is why you are attempting to skate by them ...
As you are apparently supporting him, I wonder why you are not parading the fact around that Ted Cruz is attempting to become the first foreign-born nominee ever. He is trying to become President of the United States of America, an office that has never seen such a thing, ever. This downplaying of such a unique "first" is a mystery to me. It leads to a third question now ...
It's time the people behind this speak up and tell us what they were thinking.
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.