Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,
“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period."
Statutes can be changed, rescinded or abolished by legislation, or by decree and edict.
He’s being a little too flippant about a serious Constitutional matter for potential personal gain, which leads me to suspect his bona fides as a Constitutional conservative.
“The People” appears to be a very malleable construct to him, subject to the whims of legislation. Essentially, he’s avowing that he’s Constitutionally eligible via unrelated statute.
Not a good sign, imho. He’ll betray himself elsewhere, Imho, probably over international tribalism like Rubio. The only “tribe” with which he should concern himself is identified in the Constitution, We The People.
He was not born before May 24, 1934 as described in item (h).
But item (g) seems to make him a citizen by birth.
But a citizen by birth is not necessarily a natural born citizen.
The pirate Roberts was appointed head of the subPreme court to prevent just such sovereignty by we the people from being activated to clean up the fen that is federal government in America. Federal government in America is run by an oligarchy who remain out of sight, pulling the strings of little men like barry soetoro, chuckie schumer, john mc cain, and women like diane feinstein, patty murray, and Barbara boxer. evil is now in complete control of the reins of power and they will not be easily usurped, not as easily as they have usurped we the people.
See Post #73.
By law, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), he is a citizen at birth.
I think the assent of only 4 justices are required to hear it. And I think if is simply a clarification of a definition, then the justices will rely on scholars at Harvard, Yale and so forth.
I do not agree. That section starts:
8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
continuing to:
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Unless I’m missing something here, it is pretty clear.
Am I missing something?
Concur!!
2 Citizen Parents AT birth,
(Cruz father naturalized AFTER Cruz birth.)
on US Soil
Worse yet are these FReepers who have no understanding of this after YEARS of Obama discussions of lacking NBC on FreeRepublic. If Cruz continues to push this, then he
is an aspiring USURPER also.
But that does not make him a natural born citizen.
As much as he would make a fine President, I think Ted must be told that he is not eligible to be President.
But he would make a tremendous Supreme Court Justice and we need him there badly.
First, let's get something out of the way: IF we are a constitutional republic, then Cruz is NOT eligible to be POTUS.
But, those days are over, right? This is an oligarchy or something else entirely. Whatever we've been turned into post-coup, our engine isn't running on Constitution any more.
Check the facts: Officially, no one knows what obama is or what his genetics may actually be. I don't think McCain is a NBC either, not if he was born on Panamanian soil. Yet, they were the officially sanctioned choices our one party/two party rule told us we could vote for.
So...why just limit ourselves to Cruz?
Why not shop around the world, if we are going to import our POTUS now like we do everything else, including people to work here?
Eligibility requirements are a Republican thang.
Oh I see.
He was not born before May 24, 1934.
Let me review (g) :D
I agree.
I don’t think Vlad Putin wants to live and work in America. But someone like him might be available in South America.
Oy vey.
I’ll let experts worry about that one.
Cripes.
Yes you are missing something and I don’t mean any disrespect as it is an issue that has been lost over many generations. See Post #73 to get some sense of the historical background.
What so many of us are missing today is the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ versus ‘citizen by birth’ versus ‘naturalized citizen’. All of legal definitions of these terms are rooted in meanings held in English Common Law.
We must insist that the Supreme Court revisit the meanings as intended by the Founders at the time of drafting the Constitution. The Supreme Court can task several legal scholars at Harvard, Yale and other old and venerable repositories of both English Common Law and American Law. Several scholars have already done this and they have arrived at the conclusion I summarize for them in Post #73.
It’s too bad Cruz is jettisoning the historical understanding of NBC for personal ambition.
Thank you but I'm already very familiar with Article II.
As I pointed out to you, a person who is naturalized is a person who becomes a citizen "subsequent" to birth and not "at" birth.
Sorry, but being a US citizen is NOT the constitutional standard for the office of the Presidency.
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.