Posted on 03/03/2016 10:05:54 PM PST by NKP_Vet
WASHINGTON Ted Cruz, tagged as "Canadian" by a needling Donald Trump since the GOP race tightened in January, rejects any idea of being ineligible to be U.S. president.
While Trump hasn't followed up on his threat to sue Calgary-born Cruz over what he says is the Texas senator not meeting the constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen," plenty of other people have. Trump has warned that Democrats will disrupt the electoral process by suing if Cruz is the nominee.
And that's caused Cruz a bit of trouble. He has had to lawyer up to fight the more than half-dozen lawsuits around the country, some in federal court, some in state court. A Cook County, Ill., judge tossed one of the suits Tuesday, not over the citizenship issue but over a technicality of how the papers were served.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
Not having any real proof of the intent of the Framers in choosing the Article II eligibility language, you continue to throw out lengthy posts of irrelevant material in lieu of any sharp focus on the actual intent of the Framers. Somehow I don’t think such tactics will work in front of an actual court.
I think we need to go back to the notes from the Third Congress. The Founders were still alive, except for Franklin. They wanted to assure there would be no second class citizen (irony notwithstanding). All citizens were to be considered except when election a Commander-in-Chief.
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.Here is the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act:
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States1795 Naturalization Act text change:
, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.
Thank you for the info. I searched around a bit about CRBA. If approved, they call it ‘derived’ citizenship. It appears the form and terminology is the same when applied to seeking citizenship for a child born to citizens as well as to those born to parents who subsequently become naturalized citizens, for what that’s worth.
Thank you higgmeister. I read all of that from your earlier post. I’m not finding in there any help that answers what is meant by “shall be considered as citizens” versus “are (actually) citizens”. No worries, I definitely appreciate what you’ve provided. I had never seen this before. I’ll continue to work with pieces of this weird puzzle which, by the language and definitions known by the founders, should not be nearly as complex as it has turned out to be. Many see the 1790 act and stop there stating NBC is defined while dismissing that it was repealed and replaced. I believe the reason it was replaced is because statute can not make one a NBC, only Natural Law can.
I’ve supported Ted Cruz since long before he announced he was even thinking about running. Ted Cruz is by far the MOST conservative man in the race. I also like Donald Trump. When Donald Trump started on the eligibility. I thought it was pur BS (though I still like Trump). Then some in FR started on the eligibility. I thought they were just part of the Birther thing.
But then my governor, considered to be the most conservative governor in the country came out publically and stated that Ted Cruz is not eligible. I suspect my governor would have endorsed Ted Cruz over anybody if he did not feel he was ineligible to be POTUS. Instead, he endorsed Donald Trump.
I think if there were a lawsuit against Cruz’ eligibility in this state, the governor would not assist Cruz in any way because he also feels Ted Cruz is not eligible.
Because of this, Donald Trump was exactly right about possible lawsuits from Hillary Clinton if Ted Cruz were to win the nomination. She’s the original birther. She’s the one that started it against Obama.
Personally, I would vote for Trump or Cruz in a heartbeat. But if there were a lawsuit, I just cannot know if Cruz’ name would be allowed on the ballot in my state during the general election.
I love most of what Ted Cruz stands for but we really cannot risk nominating a guy who could end up not allowed to run in one, two or three or more states nor should he be spending all his money and time fighting lawsuits when he should be focused on running against the Clinton machine.
I have seen that very thing stated in one of the other old texts but I do not know where to find it right now. I wish I could go directly to the Library of Congress to read the actual notes of the early Congresses for myself.
Do you have Cliffs Notes version?
You have to download it from SSRN Social Science Research Network.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2444766
Mmmmmm .... data is yummy ... mmmmm.
I will consume it.
Thank you!
Ri4
Cheers!
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/
VIDEO: THIS is why Cruz and Rubio didn’t attempt to have a court decide their eligibility in the past. They would have been ruled ineligible!
bttt
That presentation sort of poops on Obozo’s parade ( or charade ).
I wonder why she fails to mention it, as just one further example beyond the Cuban brothers.
The misinterpretation of such a simple term within our country’s constitution is directly tied to the slaughter of our system of learning.
As soon as I saw the Won’s first COLB, I knew he was not a NBC since his daddy was never a US citizen. But the PC term birther was invented and every talking head, blog and fish wrap told me I was a nut case.
I enjoyed the video. I wish the topic had been widely and honestly discussed in 2007. The media knew; Rush knew; Levin knows; I have no doubt at all.
the following article has many original links:
What Our Framers Knew: The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”
http://freedomoutpost.com/what-our-framers-knew-the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/#Fk17shVRt7iSyswR.99
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.