Posted on 08/27/2013 2:27:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?
No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)
What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
Snip~
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
“If Congress has to determine by statute who is NBC, then said person is not Natural Born, are they.”
Congress’s role in citizenship is clearly defined the Constitution. Article I, Section 8.
It is responsible for uniform nationalization rules to make people naturalized citizens. It has absolutely no defined or stated role in realm in the Constitution for ‘defining’ a natural born citizen. As you state - If they need a law - they ain’t natural.
Some say that Ted Cruz never ‘went through the naturalization process’. So? Neither does anyone who is collectively naturalized. Congress can pass laws making any a citizen with any criteria. The individual process is only one of many routes of naturalization.
And if a person is citizenship solely due to a single American parent when born overseas could they ever lose that citizenship? Congress said yes - and the Supreme Court agreed. So if this is the case - how in the world can that person be a natural born Citizen?
Rogers v. Bellei confirmed that person may INVOLUNTARILY LOSE their citizenship if they do not meet a residence requirement. That simply can not happen to a true natural born Citizen. Natural born Citizen have no requirement - none, never.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei
Rogers v Bellei by itself shows Cruz to be ineligible.
your post #29...
Well stated and .........A M E N ! !
Obama and Cruz each had an American mother and a foreign father. IOW, 1/2 jus sanguinis for each.
Obama was born on American soil, Cruz on foreign soil. Obama qualifies by jus solis, Cruz does not.
Two parents, one birthplace for each.
Obama two of three of the possible qualifiers for NBC, Cruz one of three.
Personally, I agree with you.
Citizen at birth = natural born citizen.
Both jus sanguinis and jus solis apply.
You are 100% correct.
At this point after all the evidence that’s been presented on FR since 2008, the only people who don’t “understand” what a NBC are willfully blind. For various reasons, no doubt.
And by “not understand” I mean “get it wrong”. Not that they think they don’t understand.
I have not a pinch of tolerance for crap left in me.
If you wife’s second cousin’s brother-in-law by marriage can hum ‘Yankee Doodle’ you are a natural born Citizen according some posters here.
If you need a Congressional law (Congress can only affect citizenship via naturalization according to that pesky document - the Constitution) to be a citizen - you ain’t natural. Period.
Ted Cruz had to live in the US for 5 years between the age of 14 and 28 to KEEP his citizenship according to laws in effect at the time. That ain’t natural.
From Minor vs Happersett: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The job requirement is, and always has been, about presumed undivided loyalties.
Thanks for the Ping, LucyT
I truly hope that doesn't turn out to be the case. In 2008, JR said he would let FReepers work it out amongst themselves. We fought tooth and nail (at times it was brutal), read and cited multiple interpretations of multiple SCOTUS decisions, researched the FF's intentions, etc. I hope JR lets this discussion about Cruz happen. IMHO, the only way the zot thread happens is if we start calling good, conservative, FRiends "trolls" or make it personal. If the discussion is civil, I think Jim will stick to his rule of letting us work it out amongst ourselves. I hope so anyway.
Cruz is a statutory citizen at birth. His citizenship was granted at birth by federal statutue through the principle of jus sanguinis (via bloodline) as opposed to being granted at birth by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through the principle of jus soli (via place of birth).
The Foreign Affairs manual states:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for PresidencyIn short, the courts have not yet ruled on whether or not a statutory citizen at birth is eligible to the 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. (snip) 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 believe they would rule in favor of Cruz's eligibility, but as of right now, the State Department says that there isn't a definitive legal answer.
I was recently referred to the SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei, which seems to clearly indicate that citizens at birth are naturalized and that such naturalization is a Congressional generosity to which they have no contitutional right.
There is a legitimate discussion to be had. I hope we can have it.
“The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.”— Wikipedia
So Rogers v Bellei was case law for eight years and then it was rendered moot by congressional action.
“It seems US jurisdiction travels with citizenship. Ted Cruz’s mother carried US jurisdiction with her.”
That’s how American citizenship works. That’s not how NBC works.
“IMHO, the only way the zot thread happens is if we start calling good, conservative, FRiends “trolls” or make it personal.”
Look at Las Vegas Ron. First argument out of the block, “you’re a troll”.
No, no I’m not. Jus Soli is a legitimate argument. Cruz, wonderful man that he is fails on that count.
“If you wife’s second cousin’s brother-in-law by marriage can hum ‘Yankee Doodle’ you are a natural born Citizen according some posters here.”
Post of the day.
Ja wohl, Herr Logan!
Not to worry.
If you survey the threads, you will see they are few but loud.
Their loudness, given the dubiousness of its factual and legal basis, was of dubious utility when Zero was the target. It is of negative utility when applied to patriots such as Cruz.
They drool. Move along, folks!
Glad you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii....I don’t....I believe his grandmother who said she was at his birth....why don’t you?
Moot - by law.
What stops Congress from re-acting it?
Another SCOTUS ruling that creates issues to the ‘everyone is a natural’ crowd. Just like V v. H.
Its still all laws - nothing natural about it. Cruz (and others) ain’t naturals.
Of course it does.
The First Congress, which with President Washington included almost half the Signers of the Constitution, specified with absolute clarity that people born US citizens abroad - LIKE TED CRUZ - were "to be considered as natural born citizens."
Since the only legal meaning and implication of a person being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was that the person was eligible to be elected President, it is absolutely clear that they intended for such persons to be eligible.
In 1833, James Bayard - whose grandfather Richard Bassett was one of the 39 Signers of the Constitution and literally our US Senator #1, and whose father was also a Senator known to his peers as "the High Priest of the Constitution," wrote an exposition on the Constitution.
In that exposition, in the discussion on PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, he stated,
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
You couldn't say any more plainly: TED CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.
Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read - AND APPROVED - by the Great Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, who dominated the Court for close to 40 years starting just a dozen or so years after the Constitution was ratified. Marshall corrected Bayard on a minor point involving Congress' authority to build roads, but said that other than that, he found nothing in Bayard's book that was not, "in my judgment, entirely just."
His exposition was also read and applauded by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, by the famous early legal expert Chancellor James Kent, and other prominent jurists.
So it is very CLEAR that the Founding Fathers did, in fact, intend for people like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President.
I know that you and the other birthers have your theory. But history is not a matter of theory. History is a matter of FACT, and the FACTS of what our early national leaders said and did are solidly and strongly against your birther theory.
Because in 1961 heavily pregnant American women just didn’t travel to East Africa. Such travel was a great deal more difficult at the time than today, and it would be very unusual today.
There have also been claims posted that she was in WA state like two weeks after the birth, which is supposed to make it unlikely she gave birth in HI. Well, it makes it a great deal less likely she gave birth in British East Africa.
Which is more likely, that the newspapers of the time were phonied up or wrong, or that the grandmother made an inaccurate claim, her statements were mistranslated, or that they were reported inaccurately?
I go with B, C and D. If you guys can come up with something vaguely resembling actual evidence he was born outside USA, I’ll be glad to take a look at it.
In the meantime you have speculation about inconsistencies in 50 year old birth records, which I suspect could be found for a great many people of that age. Recently went thru a major production number to get my wife’s driver’s license renewed. She’s in her 50s, and her birth certificate name does not match her present name. So she needed a copy of our marriage license, which had been misplaced by the county. Took months to get it straightened out.
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.