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.
No, the reason nobody "wants to touch the issue" is that it has no basis in history or law. It's that simple.
No. Basis. In. History. Or. Law.
Period.
Oh, i've pointed to case law. I've been pointing to it for the last two years. You just haven't read any of my posts regarding it. If you will scan up thread a bit, you will find me referencing Minor v Happersett.
If you want more case law, i'll give you more case law, but I am currently pressed for time, and will likely have to abandon this discussion presently.
Here's a real quick one though. (Not the most prominent, but quite clear.)
Ex Parte Reynolds.
Read what the judge said.
Have a nice day.
Running away, are you?
So here we have as much as an admission from you: It doesn't matter one damn bit what the facts are, does it?
It doesn't matter whether everything I said is true (and it is). You will still go on believing that the Constitution talks about Vattel even though I have darn good evidence that it doesn't.
After all, that's exactly what you're saying, isn't it?
And yet you still don't understand the purpose of Consular Affairs as defined within the Foreign Affairs manual published by the State Department. You say red is green until you're blue in the face. That doesn't make it so.
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.
No, but I will quote to you what the State Department's Foreign Affairs manual says about those children.
7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
d.(Skip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you, Nana. Obama had ONE (under=aged) parent who was an American citizen. No one has challenged the Punk’s eligibility successfully. Case closed. To me, this argument borders on the absurd. It’s no wonder that we conservatives can’t get our act together enough even to defeat a radical, anti-American Communist.
If Cruz wins the nomination, it would be disgraceful if a single patriot refused to vote for him, and thus allow the next putrid Marxist to win. Bob
First:
If you think Fox News is “conservative”...you are not a conservative
Second:
If you still refuse to discuss openly and rationally about Obama Eligibility....you are an Obama Supporter
Fact is Ted Cruz is not eligible as he was born in Canada. You have to be born on American soil to be natural born.
The Democrats will hammer Cruz on his eligibility if he runs for President. Guaranteed. You are a Low Information Voter if you think otherwise
But “nobody but people born on US soil of citizen parents” is exactly what “natural born citizen” meant at the time they wrote the Constitution.
Yes. John McCain did NOT release his birth certificate. If you saw a John McCain birth certificate, IT.IS.A.FAKE!!!!
At one time, I could show you the birth certificate it was copied from, but I simply no longer have the time to look that stuff up.
We operated under English common law while ours formed. Common law refers to laws derived from court decisions, and we initially had almost none.
For the purposes of this debate, English common law gave meanings to the terms used in the Constitution. Thus:
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]”
"I don’t believe the Founders were stupid at all."Whether they would have approved of it or not is completely irrelevant. They didn't put anything in the Constitution to prevent it.
So you think they would have approved of birth tourism?
It says common law, it does not say English common law.
Or, they might not reject Rogers v. Bellei (as I understand the case) and say simply that "natural born citizen" means "citizen at or by birth," but that in accordance with past common law precedent, Congress has the authority to define who are citizens at or by birth in the instance of those born outside of US soil, and to place residency conditions that could strip some such persons of their (natural born) citizenship.
And those who would fail to vote for Cruz on the basis of him not being a natural born citizen have needlessly succumbed to conspiracy theorists who simply do not have a legal or Constitutional case.
One gets tired of hearing the same old ignorant saws time after time. I have plenty of support. Since you are new to this discussion, I won't expect that you should know of it. I will trot it out by and by. This is, after all, only an academic discussion at this point.
You have the burden of proof. You have contrived a definition of “natural born citizen” that has no contextual support.
One would think that those who argue that this (Meaning the unborn child who was Chinese when the picture was taken)
Is a natural born citizen, ought to have the burden of proof to demonstrate such a nonsensical thing. Again, it requires you believe the founders must be stupid.
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.
What makes you think it is unsubstantiated? You just haven't seen the mountain of evidence which I and others have seen. It's pretty d@mn well substantiated.
Very well said.
Sorry this is not an accurate representation of the historical legal definition of natural born citizen. Historically legal scholars and the SCOTUS have followed Vatel’s “Law of Nations” definition of natural born citizen which is born in the US of two citizen parents.
The 14th ammendment had nothing to do with the natural born citizen definition. It was soley aimed at defining all of the former slaves as citizens.
True, but when you’ve got around 10 percent of the US born overseas, that’s 30 million Americans.
Why is it disgraceful? Laws are laws. Are we or are we not bound to respect the constitution?
"Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts."
-- Henry Rosovsky
What is at issue is who is qualified to lead this nation.
If you say so. Let's get Vladimir Putin. I like the way he takes charge in Russia. We could use a man like that!
Ted Cruz certainly has the right stuff.
All except for legal qualifications. Don't blame me, I didn't write article II.
Cruz is articulate, clear-thinking and courageous. He is among the best of the best in the GOP, and everyone knows it. Hence, the discussion. But I wouldn’t care if he was a guy dangling off a bar stool. His birth to an American makes him eligible for POTUS. Some folks here would rather stand by a fine point which is not rational in Cruz’ case, IMO, and very much in dispute, and ultimately allow socialism to triumph, and freedom to perish. Bob
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.