Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is at the center of the latest "birther" conspiracy. But he's not the first to face this line of questioning.
A handful of politicians have been targeted in the last few years with the same accusation -- that they are not fit for the Presidency because they do not meet the constitutionally-mandated eligibility requirement of being a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.
Confusion around who qualifies as a "natural born" citizen has contributed to the debate, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase. Some incorrectly presume it only includes people born within the boundaries of the United States. In fact, by U.S. citizenship law you can be American "at birth" or a "natural born citizen" under a few circumstances that don't involve being born on the mainland. For example, if you're born on a U.S. military base abroad, like in Panama, that counts. You are still categorized as being American "at birth" if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens and fit a list of long and complicated requirements that arebroken down here.
Check out our list of politicians who have battled "birther" claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Going public with your information is the best protection.
When a person is a named defendant in a lawsuit, any document that is submitted to a judge is an Offical submission on behalf of that defendant.
No one has ever asked Obama to officially attach his name to a submission of his birth certificate however in 2007 Obama himself signed an official document of the state of Arizona attesting to the fact that he is “a natural born citizen of the United States.” That notarized statement was required in order to get on the Arizona ballot.
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaArizonaPapers.htm
Going public with your information is your best protection.
(misdirected prior post)
Yes, it’s an intentionally misleading headline. They are trying to make him sound like a birther, when he is not. And a conspirator! They hate him now, obviously, so he must be a viable candidate.
Just had to have my little say of truth.
that’s the reason ALL the cases have been dismissed without being heard
force the anti-birthers to submit the documents. then we’ll see what happens
What’s the difference? Are you just looking for something to whine about?
The Constitution never defines NBC, that is why most who study the Constitution more say the definition is same as in English Common Law. Born to a citizen while beyond the sea sure seems to meet their generally accepted definition. Same as NBC is granted upon anyone born in the USA regardless of their parent’s citenship with the exception of parents being diplomats or members of invading armies.
See post #75.
They are definitely and easily shown not to the be same.
Puerto Ricans are NOT natural born Citizen since they are definitely NATURALIZED.
Yet, they are citizens at birth.
X - has been.
Spurt - drip under pressure.
natural born Citizen = natural Citizen and born Citizen.
Natural citizen - a citizen who does not require any law to define their citizenship. This a person born in a country to parents who are citizens of the country.
born Citizen - having the trait SINCE birth not AT birth.
This is why Sven is correct in that if Obama naturalized legally he can not be a natural born Citizen. It means he lost his citizenship at some point and has not been a natural Citizen SINCE birth.
Lt. Zullo will filing criminal charges any day now.
I would like to hear that rational.
As well as everyone who had an Irish grandparent?
I don't see where anyone mentioned grandparents
As a seasoned birther from '08 I have to say that this definition hits it spot on. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2999448/posts?page=7#7
Actually Obama has claim to British Citizenship - to this day.
With his legal father being British at the time of his birth he has claim to protection from the Queen.
They cannot produce affidavits that Both of their parents were citizens at the time of their birth. That is the more important criteria as it is possible a child would assume the loyalties of the non- citizen parent.
To repost the best post toward your off-the-wall comment:
“The Constitution says what it says. Birthers like to pretend otherwise in hope of some political advantage that we couldn’t get at the ballot box, which is anathema to conservatism.
Those of us who truly love the Constitution have to respect it even it doesn’t say what we wish it did.”
Now back to suckerfish comments.
Where the heck did Puerto Rico come from in a discussion about conservatives NBC? Must be blueSQUIRREL.....
Looks like you bit off more than can chew as that goldfish turned out to be on a trotline and the fillet knife is your next stop.
Now you can go on back to your DU posts about navel lint, and Puerto Rico........
Bye Bye to our bottomfeeder FRiend. Have a great day.
It’s admirable you have defined a term that was not defined, specifically and completely, at the time the document was ratified. But, SCOTUS won’t recognize your definition or any definition of the term because they have decided it was not meant to be defined. SCOTUS has repeatedly opined Congress is discharged with the duty of developing a uniform rule of immigration and naturalization, but it is unconstitutional for Congress to define or legislate as to the status of a citizen. Once you become a citizen, you’re a citizen and that’s it with one exception. The exception is that only a natural born citizen can be POTUS.
Consequently, the only way to determine who is eligible for POTUS is to eliminate those who are not eligible. Non-citizens are not eligible. Citizens who achieved their citizenship status by completing the naturalization process are not eligible. SCOTUS has not opined on whether or not a statutory citizen is eligible, but a good argument can be made they are not eligible because their Certificates of Citizenship are revocable.
Instead of examining a candidates birth certificate, we should examine a candidate’s immigration file to determine if they are eligible.
You do realize that this definition excludes every single Jew in the United States, don't you?It's quite simple. All Jews (and some non-Jews with Jewish ancestry) can claim Israeli citizenship should they choose. meadsjn thinks that a Natural Born Citizen must "have no potential claim to citizenship in any other country". That would, by definition, exclude all Jews.
I would like to hear that rational.
As well as everyone who had an Irish grandparent?Sure did - they were swept up in his net, for the same reason. Anyone with an Irish grandparent has a claim on Irish citizenship.
I don't see where anyone mentioned grandparents
I'm sure meadsjn didn't mean to exclude Jews, descendants of the Emeral Isle (and undoubtedly many, many others). But this is the problem I have with birtherism; good intentions, unintended consequences. Better to follow what the Constitution actually says than try to pretend otherwise.
The Heritage Guide to The Constitution
The third qualification to be President is that one must be a "natural born Citizen" (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may become a Member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be President, one must be "a natural born Citizen." Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office."
Prior to the Kenyan/Indonesian commie muslim pissant, the only president who did not meet the "two citizen parents plus being born on American soil" requirement, was Chester A. Arthur. Several journalists kept the heat on Arthur during his presidency, due to just one of his parents being naturalized after his birth. Arthur ordered all his personal papers burned before his death (one year and nine months after leaving office), so this issue never got clarified in his case.
If ever any doubt existed about the requirement of "unquestionable allegiance" vs. "divided loyalty", this current Kenyan/Indonesian commie muslim pissant provides the most glaring example of what happens when America elects a president with less than absolute loyalty to the USA.
As far as I'm aware, we have not had a Jewish candidate for president yet, so this same discussion over divided loyalty would and most likely will take place if ever such is the case.
As far as your example of the (future) child of Irish immigrants:
The United States Oath of Allegiance (officially referred to as the "Oath of Allegiance," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)) is an oath that must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens. The current oath is as follows:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.[1]
I understand why this discussion bothers people who think their half-Mexican, or half-any-other offspring, should be eligible to the presidency. The same concern over "divided allegiance" will be ever-present. They care less about conserving the USA, than ensuring that their half-alien offspring has a shot at continuing the dismantling of the US Constitution.
Cruz came from the womb of an American citizen...over the age of 19.
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.