Jeff, you’ve already tried foisting that nonsense in another thread.
Here’s the historic fact of U.S. Secretary of State Bayard determining that one born in the U.S. to an alien father was NOT even a U.S. citizen at all:
“The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth OF THE SAME NATIONALITY AS HIS FATHER. Had he REMAINED in this country till he was of full age and then ELECTED an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality.
...”By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 1866 — “All persons born in the United States, AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
By the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ratified in 1868 — “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.”
Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER” and “NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” He was NOT, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is NOT pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”
Source: A Digest of the International Law of the United States
http://books.google.com/books?id=wdgxAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
If one born in the U.S. to an alien father isn’t born a citizen because at birth was “SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER,” it would stand to reason that one born abroad “SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER” likewise isn’t born a citizen.
Plain as day. BOTH Obama and Cruz are Constitutionally INELIGIBLE.
This is the legal opinion of a Secretary of State, not a judicial decision.
If you read the context, he is also basing his opinion primarily on “international law,” not on the US Constitution. Which I thought conservatives objected to.
This was also around the same period when US women (but not men) who married a foreigner automatically lost their citizenship per laws passed by Congress. Do you think that was, or should be, constitutional?
I think it’s possible to argue that Greisser was “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” I think Bayard was stretching it, but I think it’s possible to at least make that argument.
But by the intention of those who wrote the 14th Amendment (and I’ve read these debates now) I really don’t think it’s possible for a reasonable, well-informed person to argue that children born in the United States to US citizens or to RESIDENT aliens are “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
And both Obama and Cruz are clearly eligible.