Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
Death by peaceful invasion, same as here, what a shame.
The problem isn’t birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship has been in place a long time. The problem isn’t even immigration levels - soon the US will be constrained not by quotas, but by desire of folks to immigrate here.
The problem is welfare. Prior to welfare, birthright citizenship wasn’t a problem. Now, it is because it qualifies you for free bennies.
I’d be happy if he runs the DOJ or DHS. Lots of sex pervs, global marxists and fascists would lose their jobs. I would feel safer from Islam’s and communism’s terrorism on the constitution and homeland. : )
Do you haul garbage for a living? I would be surprised if anyone trusted you with doing anything that actually required knowledge or skills.
Those judges of which you speak, said that black people were property. Were they correct back then, or were they wrong back then?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html
Were the judges right or wrong? Tell me please! I really want to know if Judges are always right!
“Since there was no ius soli in 1855 that means that all people born to American Fathers were de factorequired to have two US citizen parents...”
Wrong. As made clear in the extensive quotes in WKA, there had NEVER been a requirement for two citizen parents for anyone born in the USA.
“In any case, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, your citizenship was inherited solely from your father...”
This is a total false statement. It has no connection with reality. The 1844 case of Lynch discussed the US idea of citizenship at length. It concluded that someone born within the USA, of two alien parents, was undoubtedly a natural born citizen:
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Lynch_v_Clarke_1844
In 1795: “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
I could go on. There is no doubt that the USA has always followed birth within the country as the primary means of being born a citizen, without regard for the citizenship of the father. The father’s citizenship only mattered in certain areas pertaining to international law, such as born on the high seas, or those born in disputed territories.
You are simply totally wrong about the facts.
Are you saying that the wrinkled, aged document that we all saw right here on FreeRepublic, recording the facts of the birth of John McCain is as phony as....well...Obama's?
You may not get this, but nobody bothers to read crap when it is posted the way you post it. I didn't read your message, and i'm not going to read your message.
If you want someone to read your message, post it in small enough pieces that people won't just skip the entire thing as I just did.
So condescending for the one pushing the unsupported position. You have the burden of proof. You have contrived a definition of “natural born citizen” that has no contextual support.
The legal professors who have studied this subject have also never found any support for this definition requiring you to born in the United States to two US citizens.
We’re all upset Barack Obama has two Presidential elections. However, pushing your unsubstantiated definition of “natural born citizen” does not really help the cause.
Pray tell, what definitions ARE found in the constitution?
Save your breath.
What is at issue is who is qualified to lead this nation.
Ted Cruz certainly has the right stuff.
The graphic that you present on citizenship is simply wrong. Here is an accurate one:
This is the historical understanding of natural born citizenship. It is the understanding of the US Supreme Court and all lower courts. It is the understanding of the legal profession, of all major conservative legal and Constitutional authorities, and of every other credible legal authority, not only now, but throughout American history.
Wait, wait wait. You do realize that the Framers of the Constitution, also didn’t consider blacks to be citizens either. You can’t mock the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, while pushing your definition of “natural born citizen” supposedly from the Framers of the Constitution.
No my FRiend, it is you who has no idea of what you’re talking about.
It goes on to define what, exactly, is considered U.S. soil. It gets so specific that it defines when birth on a military vessel is considered birth on U.S. soil. (BTW: international waters = no.)
Again, I read that entire document and this is addressing U.S. citizenship of the children of non-U.S. citizens born on U.S facilities or for that matter in international waters, on U.S. owned vessels, etc. and not those of U.S. citizens living or serving in the military or in the diplomatic service abroad. Read the links I provided in my previous posts about U.S. citizenship of the children of U.S. citizen parents living or serving abroad and get back to me.
Yes, Ax’s children are citizens at birth. No one is disputing that. According to the State Dept., that does not, however, automatically grant them eligibility under the Constitution for the presidency. The courts have not ruled on the eligibility of those granted citizenship at birth by statute.
There are only two types of citizens as defined in the U.S. Constitution and by the 14th Amendment: those who were born here (natural born citizens) and those who became citizens through naturalization. Since Ax’s children were citizens at and from birth and not merely by statute or later by naturalization and most importantly given that both their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their births and that he was serving abroad as an active duty member in good standing of the U.S. military and that those children did not have to be naturalized or apply for citizenship at a later date, they are NBC’s and have all the rights granted to them under the Constitution including eligibility to run and be elected POTUS as if they had been born in the 50 contiguous United States. They, being born to a U.S. military member, a U.S. born citizen AND his U.S. born citizen wife are unquestionably just as much U.S. citizens by birth, NBC’s as you or I, and I’m sure many members of the military serving overseas find it insulting that you imply otherwise.
If what you claim was really true; that the children born of U.S. citizen military service members or those of U.S. diplomats and their U.S. citizen spouses while they were honorably serving our country overseas, are not U.S. citizens with ALL the rights that would be otherwise granted to them had they been born while their parents were serving in the very same capacity states side, how many military service members or diplomats would be willing to take very important overseas assignments overseas if that meant that their children born during their overseas assignments would have some sort of second class citizenship?
Are you trying to say that Ax’s children are second class citizens or lesser citizens than you or I just because he, a U.S. born citizen and his U.S. born citizen wife, scarified living in the U.S. for some years in order to serve his country as he was ordered by the U.S. military to do so?
It was never concretely defined. However, all the legal research done on the topic seems to contradict your interpretation.
The Court would never take your narrow view of the “natural born citizen” especially when there’s no contextual support.
No, that is not at all what I am saying. If the Supreme Court took the case they almost certainly would rule that Cruz is eligible. Neither the legislature or the judicial branch are going to rule Cruz ineligible. I simply agreed the Supreme Court wouldn't likely take the case unless some lower court ruled against Cruz (which I doubt would happen).
You might find these articles of interest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/
I know you disagree. But since your opinion (which is all that it is) goes against virtually every authority throughout the entirety of United States history, including people who were close to the Founding Fathers, such as William Rawle, your opinion just doesn't count for very much.
My point being that if there is no law on the books expressly permitting it under our US naturalization laws, it is not “legal” in the sense of being covered by specific US law.
It is “recognized” in the sense that it is “tolerated”. Why has it never been officially adopted as an “official citizenship” status? Lots of new laws dealing with lots of other countries would ensue. Talk about a nightmare!
This way the US can just look the other way if you are in the “other” country you have allegiance to and that country lays claim to you.
The old: “ Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas”, problem shows up and the US may just wash it’s hands of you. If dual citizenship were officially law, the US would/could be obligated to go to bat for you no matter the situation, costs, time and effort involved.
Additionally, Mark Levin, one of the only national pundits who has a strong knowledge of the Constitution, also believes Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally eligible.
Yes, and as I've noted elsewhere, Mark Levin is a rock-solid conservative who lives and breathes the Constitution.
The real ticking time bomb is countries that aren’t friends of the US sponsoring it’s loyal citizens to come here and have a kid making that kid an American citizen.
The parent and child then return to their home country where the child is raised as a loyal citizen to that country and trained as a soldier and an enemy to the US.
At 18yo that child then comes to the US as a citizen and brings that America hating training with them, and there is nothing we can do to stop them.
You can end up with thousands of fanatical foreign soldiers in this country ready to wage a civil war.
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.