Posted on 01/30/2016 6:07:38 PM PST by kathsua
The United States Constitution requires presidents to be “natural born citizensâ€. The original Constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizenâ€, but the 14th Amendment states there are two categories of U.S. citizens: those who are born in the United States and those who are naturalized under Acts of Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.telegraph.co.uk ...
Such as a child born to a Muslim father in Mecca, and a mother who is a citizen of the USA? The founders intended this? Oh my- pray tell...
Go ahead and show us some of your legal evidence that Natural Born Citizen means anything other than Native Born Citizen i.e. born within the jurisdiction of a particular sovereign.
Too bad they weren't that adamant about obama.
Please opine, but keep it pithy.
I’m putting fresh batteries in my laugh machine. I expect it to get a good workout shortly.
Rubio was immediately subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth and was born into allegiance to the United States. According to the common law, he is a NBC. Pandora’s box is opening.
Rogers v Bellei
This is confusing- can someone help explain what this means?
It is just a crazy birther claim.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It is a very valid claim by those who know the constitution and the innumerable documents which uphold the claim that Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen.Had the same attention been paid as to Obama’s eligibility, we would have not suffered the destruction of America that has happened under his administration. Obama is NOT eligible and neither are Cruz and Rubio. The Framers of the constitution were aware of the danger of someone with divided loyalties ever becoming President AND CoMMAND IN CHIEF.
I love how people just keep repeating the lies just like the Democrats do until people believe it is the truth.
Ted Cruz did disclose the Loan on a form. Just not on a form he didn't realize he needed to.
There is A LOT of historical evidence that supports this.
But did he have to renounce his Canadian citizenship BECAUSE he was a Canadian citizen, before becoming an American citizen? Canadian law says YES. It’s not a difficult question, and the answer is not that hard to come up with. Focus on the subject at hand.
The Naturalization Act of 1934
There is a big difference between a citizen and a subject. At least there used to be.A subject is subordinate to the King. A Citizen is the ruling power as we have no king. i deed our declaration of independence declared for all time, WE THE PEOPLE. Some prefer to accept the English Common Law version, but to all the documentation surrounding the constitutional committee and written by its members, I cannot see how any other assumption can be made but that Vattel was THE source of the wording of natural born citizen.
There is just simply overwhelming evidence and the Law of Nations was cited in Article I, Section 8. Vattel is cited over and over in a long stream of Supreme court Cases and it is well known that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Jay, and numerous others had copies of The Law of Nations in their possession.
It is true that Blackstone was also present in the Congressional library together with The Law of Nations as there is a record of said purchases, however that was some years later....in the 90’s I believe. There is also a record of a strong dissent by one of the members of the committee who stated that English Law was NOT the foundation used in the constitution.
I would appreciate very much your citing references as to why it is not clear that they accepted Vattel’s definition of NBC ....and the words “in its entirety” are perplexing. Three words, Natural born citizen...in its entirety?????????
Seems a bit of a stretch.
It always amazes me when facts present themselves, AND- invariably, opposing sides wither away... and the thread dies a premature death.
Is Churchill then less of a NBC than Cruz?
Does it seem reasonable that Churchill could have run for the US presidency legally as Cruz claims he can??
I like Cruz! But when you consider that Churchill was born under similar circumstances it feels less certain that Cruz is a NBC.
If Cruz can get a certification by congress of his NBC status or a federal court rules in his favor then I want him to someday become president...IMO his best shot is serving first as Trump's VP.
Churchill was born in Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England, on November 30, 1874, to Lady Randolph Churchill (Jennie Jerome), who was born in the United States, and to Lord Randolph Churchill, a British citizen. Hence, Churchill was like Cruz born out of the United States to what Cruz would consider a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father.
BTW, I'm NOT blowing smoke up anyone's ass here! I do really like Cruz... If it were all up to me and I got to choose the next president I would choose Cruz. He's very smart, I don't think he is actually a supporter of amnesty...having no funds to run a campaign forces him to give lip-service to big donors dreams of an open-border... but I seriously doubt he would please those donors once he was in office. (all candidates lie to get the $$$ to run) I don't think he could win in the general though...but after serving as Trump's VP I think he could end up as president. Trump could even resign office early and elevate him to the presidency.
I'm all in for Trump because I think he is the only one that can actually win against the dem candidate...whoever that ends up being... but I am fond of Cruz and hope that he can someday serve as president... he is young still and has plenty of time. I do admit he has made a few mistakes lately that have made me wince (like the bromance with loser Beck and the vote-shaming silliness) OUCH! :-(
I'm saying a prayer that freepers can come together after Trump wins Iowa Monday! The Trump supporters should refrain from too much gloating...I know it will be hard to do. I will be making posts hoping that Trump and Cruz decide to kiss and make up after the Iowa results are in.
Prove a negative? I don’t think so. First, you show me binding legal precedent that affirmatively states what NBC means. You can’t. Traditionally, nations have used various combinations of jus soli and jus sanguinis, Roman, French, British, many others. There is simply no basis to assume the founders had only Vattell in mind when they wrote what they did. Indeed, the Naturalization Act of 1790 may be the only time, and only for 5 years, that even a partial definition of NBC existed in statutory form, and that definition comports with the Cruz theory of jus sanguinis NBC status. As that document was created by the founding generation, the very men who put our Constitution together, it has substantial weight. But even so, that weight is only persuasive, not binding, because even that partial definition is no longer on the books. But it does provide insight to what the founders believed, and that evidence suggests they were not opposed to natural born status emerging from parentage alone.
Peace,
SR
Naturalization can occur at birth.
It’s a tough case. What about an NBC American Muslim raised to be a Manchurian candidate, a crypto-jihadist, who actually gets to be President? Does Vattell protect us from that? Or does it really come down to we the voters being informed and vetting the candidates as though our futures depended on it? I’ll take Texas Ted over Strip Club Trump any day of the week.
Peace,
SR
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.