Posted on 01/16/2016 3:43:22 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Stinkin’ Canadian. Dang feriner, conspirin’ to come over here and replace our delicious, crispy, all-American bacon with that floppy, communist, Canadian crap. And Budweiser? Like your Budweiser? Forget it. If he’s elected, it’s nothing but that skunky Molson swill for you, my friend. Football? Banned. It’s all sticks, pucks and missing teeth from here on out. A wall on the southern border? ISIS? TB-infected Mesicans and Central Americans? Ha! A mere diversion. Trump needs to build that wall up north to keep commie Canucks like Ted Cruz out of the White House.
He’s gaining on The Donald, you see. And so finally the question of his eligibility to serve as our 45th U.S. president is fair game. Oh, sure, Ted grew up in Houston, Texas. And, oh, sure, his mother, who happened to be over the border in Canada when Ted was born, is a U.S citizen, herself born in Wilmington, Delaware, which, oh, sure, automatically makes Ted a U.S. citizen from birth. But, hey! I, the guys down at the Elks Lodge with their pocket constitutions and whatnot, and Donald Trump, who, with his own political self-interests in mind has suddenly flip-flopped on the subject, all disagree. Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States based upon our extreme-minority take on the phrase, “Natural-born citizen.â€
For that matter, and based upon our own arbitrary and narrow definition – I know, it’s not defined in the Constitution, but derpity derp derp anyway – some might suggest that eight of the first nine U.S. presidents should have been ineligible to serve as well. Since they were all born as British citizens in the British colonies, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et al., should have been, one and all, constitutionally ineligible.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
But it’s okay for illegals to come across this border and drop a kid and that is instantly an American citizen and no doubt elegible to be prez of US?
If this is the case, then there’s nobody alive who is eligible. LOL
*******************
You nailed that one....... LOL
Concurring bump...ironically it will likely be a wise Latina with NY values who declares Cruz eligible.
In defining what an Article II natural born Citizen is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of "natural born Citizen" in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment's "citizen" to Article II's "natural born Citizen." But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer "natural born citizen" status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
McConnell [aka the Senate] already threw Cruz under the bus on this. Note Post 28. Other senators also publically did the same or worse. No support from the senate. Therefore, Cruz has a problem that both makes him a hero to conservatives and the perception of unqualified outside the ‘G’ OP.
Why do you keep asserting something that's not even there?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Canada is not *subject to the jurisdiction* of the United States.
What's bizarre about Valentine's argument is that no originalist, not even the conservative constitutional scholar Rob Natelson, prodigious author and frequently cited by the US Supreme Court, makes such an argument or such a haughty declaration.
Valentine thinks himself a constitutional scholar and claims that the idea that the 14th amendment giving women the ability to pass on natural born status is common knowledge or something for "148" years!
As for the 14th amendment, women were already citizens of the United States. The 14th amendment didn't even give them the right to vote. It only provides for equal "protection" under the law. If it is as Valentine says, then there should never have been a need for the 19th amendment. If protection means "treated the same way as men," this should have been the case. If women did not even receive the right to vote from the 14th amendment, then it's impossible to claim that it changed the definition of natural born citizen.
You had to be born in America to,two parents who are American citizens
Cruz has not sued in court for equal protection under the 14th. The Congress must apply the same standard to all citizens.
SWELL. Is this really what we want FOREVER? Obama started the transformation and destruction. Seems like a lot of people want to continue down that path. Why?
I always thought it was Natural born vs Naturalized, where you come from another country, take lessons, pass tests and then become citizens.
If you have an American parent today you are considered 100% American. I believe that is what the framers had in mind. But not for those who come from non-American parentage and another country.
That’s why I believe the dropping of babies here by foreigners is contrary to what the Constitution intended.
You have totally misrepresented my views.
I never said that the 14th Amendment redefined the term natural born citizen in any way whatsoever. I also do not want to read into the Constitution that which is not there. There is altogether too much of that going on.
Your specific reference to the 14th Amendment is the furthest thing from my mind as it is probative of nothing, and I never made reference to it in the manner you suggest. Your post is talking right past me, as it has nothing to do with the fact that the 14th amendment extended or reaffirmed the equal protection of the law to both men and women, ending patrilineage as a matter of law.
Drop babies aren’t and they have no American parent.
You really scraped the bottom of the barrel to post this articel.
First of all, it was the forst SEVEN Presidents who were grandfathered in, not eight.
Martin Van Buren, the 8th President, was the first natural born President. He was born in the country in 1782 of two American citizen parents.
Second, the author cites English common law, which was not the standard used for the Constitution. Common law of England has to do with the King and the relation of subjects to the King.
The Founders used Vattel, a French author fo the Law of Nations. The Founders had just fought a war with England and were not going to have a monarchy in any shape or form. They were the first to establish a nation without a king or queen as its head.
Third, the author conflates the terms natural born citizen and citizen as if they is no difference.
Fourth, the author shows his ignorance of the McCain situation. McCain was born of two American parents while his father was serving in the military. According To Vattel, McCain’s dad was in the service of his country, which made McCain a natural born citizen, whether McCain was born in Brooklyn or in Antarctica.
Fifth, the author does not explain how Cruz was born the citizen of three different countries, and at birth, was equally a citizen of all three. There is no logic in the world that can explain that away to leave Cruz the natural born citizen of just one of them.
Sixth, the author deliberately misconstrued what Congress does in passing an act of naturalization. The rules of naturalization are by the Constitution, given to Congress alone to determine. Congress sets the rules, including the status of those born overseas to a citizen, citizens, aliens, or a citizen and an alien. If Congress has to set the rule by which your citizenship is determined, then you are naturalized, not natural born.
Not only is the author uninformed, he deliberately uses his ignorance to misinform others. He tries to cloak his misinformation by making fun of those who question Cruz’s eligibility as ignorant, yahoos, and bitter clingers.
He just insulted more Americans than Ted Cruz has.
Even if one having only one parent can make you natural born, than using Vattel and Minor v. Happensett, it is clear that place also plays a role in the definition.
Even with his HI birth certificate, real or not has not bee determined in court, Obama pretends at least to have been born in the country. Ted Cruz can not even make that claim.
Ted is an American citizen by virtue of his mother’s American citizenship. But a citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen, otherwise the words natural born would not be in the qualifications for President. Since a citizen, with no qualifier to the term, can be a Senator or a Congressman there has to be a distinction.
Ted Cruz is recognized as a natural born citizen of Canada according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946.
He is also subject to the claims of Cuba,as his father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth. None of this appears in the article.
The purpose of the natural born term being entered in the Constitution has provenance, being requested in writing to George Washington by John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The reason is that the Founders knew the President was also the Commander in Chief of the military, and there is only one such person with that power, while there would be more and more Congressmen and Senators as the country expanded.
It was imperative that this Commander in Chief have the highest degree of allegiance to America as the Founders could devise.
Cruz is so fixed on being President that he would willingly risk a Constitutional crisis to become one.
For a constitutional expert, that is baffling.
Vattel certainly does, unless you are one of those who claims that Vattel didn't use the exact phrase "natural born citizenship" in French, which is an argument put forward by an odious congressional report. It's a stupid argument since, by implication, it asserts that there is no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Whether Vattel used phrases like "native" or "indigenous," he clearly was referring to something other than a regular "citizen."
Whatever the case, since even British law forbid Ted Cruz natural born status, it makes no difference what kind of noise is drawn against Vattel.
Sounds clear to me. But there are so many contradictory statements that if I can’t know what is difinitive, the low info voter sure as heck will be confused.
That is not what the election should be about.
Cruz needs to do more than ridicule. He needs to use his debating skills and mastery of constitutionalism — make it work for him on this issue, and get it behind him ...
... rather than DIVIDE anti-leftists.
Dual citizenship then. Or does that exclude Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Syria?
Hattie, you are correct.
Bookmark
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.