She is 4 years older than Ted's father.
a hard date would be better; maybe with some record document.
see line 79 - She was 5 years old in 1940, making her born about 1935. Public records show her birthdate as November 23, 1934.
Posted on 03/06/2013 1:26:12 PM PST by Perdogg
I believe the text I noted from Vattel is correct and accurate though some people might have a copy that has para. 212 titled differently than what I have. I still stand by what the Founding Fathers meant and debated about with ‘natural born citizen’ is in the paragraph 212 I referred to. As to your questioning me as to what type of citizen Senator Cruz is I would base it considering it in the framework that my information is that he was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a USA citizen mother. His father was a fighter for Castro’s revolution but later rescinded the support ostensibly because he did not like communism. The family came to the USA when now Senator Cruz was 4 years old. As such my take is he can/does meet the requirements of a USA Senator like Obama but he is not eligible for POTUSA as much as some people would like to twist the Constitution for any personnal purposes. I like what I see of the man’s politics and believe that somewhere in this vast Nation there is or will be a person our Founding Fathers envisioned as POTUSA.
John McCain doesn’t meet your criteria, but Barack Obama does.
In my civics classes, I was taught that you are either a citizen at birth or a naturalized citizen. Two categories - not three or four or five or six or more.
Both McCain, by nature of his parentage, and Obama, by nature of his birthplace AND parentage, were citizens at birth.
If you don’t believe that either McCain or Obama were citizens at birth, then please quote for me a valid source documenting the time they became naturalized citizens.
A prominent conservative commentator or elected official refuses to sign on? They are OBVIOUSLY part of or a victim of the conspiracy! Or they just don't respect the Constitution and want to render the relevant language meaningless.
I have been consistent from way before 0bama hit the scene. When the Constitutionality of McCain as a potential President was discussed I looked at the Constitution and found only THREE types of citizen discussed. It seems obvious that McCain is not a naturalized citizen, and even more obvious that he was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (although he admittedly hasn't aged well). Thus he must be the only OTHER type of citizen made mention of in the Constitution - a natural born citizen.
Soon after 0bama was elected there was a Vattel revival - people fixated on Vattel 212 and insisted that based upon it McCain (and others) were not eligible for the Presidency. Most never bothered to read on to Vattel 217 that clearly made McCain eligible even if the founders went with Vattel as the end-all be-all of what constituted natural law - which is unlikely considering how obscure he was and how rarely he was mentioned and how closely the phrase “natural born citizen” agrees with and is congruent in meaning with the phrase in English law (which was the law the founders were most familiar with and many professionally trained in) “natural born subject”.
Most of our founders were natural born subjects of England - and based the legality of their rebellion on the King not respecting their rights as natural born subjects of England - and obviously very few of our founders were actually born IN England.
I don't in any way mean to be negative about BD's work--I rely on it first for much of my own thinking.
But, "about 35" is not exactly precise enough I don't think.
Ted born in 1970 at her age 35 is probably workable--however her birth date in 35 makes her four years younger than Ted's father--which is certainly not impossible.
But to start looking at the fine print in the effective date clauses for the citizenship statute, a hard date would be better; maybe with some record document.
I would have thought that in the hotly contested Texas Senate race, someone would have been looking at this stuff.
Your first paragraph of your last response shows/expresses why our different views and construction of history of the USA will not be reconciled. My years of living has taught me that words, and even events, mean different things to different people. So be it! I shall continue to believe as to the intent of the Founder’s incorporating that a specific requirement ‘natural born citizen’ was to be differentiated from the less restrictive stated requirement of ‘citizen’ for Congresspersons. My belief carries no accusatory words as to others that have a different belief even though an important, if not a vital, impact of/on our Constitution is in question.
Do my posts #77 (and math correction in #79) help?
They are a first cut at a worst case analysis, and a starting point to show where we need to fill in the gaps in the timeline:
When his parents got married (look 1962 to early 1970),
When they went to the job assignment in Canada.
Many thanks again!
Your point about state senate got me thinking .. what points germane to what we are looking at would have come up then?
I agree that the qualifications are different between the Presidency (either a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution or a natural born citizen) and a Senator (a citizen of any type). That should be obvious.
Where we differ is that you seem to think there is some OTHER category of citizen not mentioned in the Constitution.
There are only three types of U.S. citizen mentioned in the U.S. Constitution - at the time of adoption, natural born, or naturalized.
The more restrictive standard for the Presidency is that naturalized citizens are not qualified for the Presidency.
Do you consider Senator Cruz (or McCain) a naturalized citizen? You did not answer a clear question about what type of citizen you would consider Senator Cruz.
His comment, from his own Swiss point of view, was that the natives, or indigenes (we would say the "indigenous people" of a country) were those born in the country of parents who were citizens.
His book was never the source of our phrase natural born citizen (which came from natural born subject), and no one ever translated his "natives or indigenes" to mean "natural born ciitizens" until 10 years after our Constitution was written.
When they did, it wasn't even an American translator who used that phrase. It was some guy over in England.
Vattel has nothing at all to do with "natural born citizen" in our Constitution. And yes, if Ted Cruz was born an American citizen, he's eligible to be elected President.
My wonderment at this time in our discussion and by your last remarks is why you are so strident with your demands on how I view your questions without being upfront with what you are getting at and reasons for such. I previously commented as to Cruz that being born in Canada of a Cuban citizen father, even with a USA citizen mother, Cruz could be eligible for the Senate but not for POTUSA. That said his USA citizen ship depends on the legal weight of having a USA citizen mother as opposed to the other factors of his birth. It should have been obvious that I do not consider Cruz a ‘natural born citizen’ per Constitutional requirements. McCain’s situation is really unique and the Obama enablers latched onto that to pave a way to justify Obama’s eligibility. I believe that McCain’s eligibility pivots on whether being born of a USA citizen mother at a hospital not on actual USA soil. At this point of comparisons between Cruz and McCain the difference exists in that McCain’s mother was part of being located on USA government duties/business. Cruz’s parents while in Canada apparently had no USA government position This feature separates McCain’s status from Cruz’s status and does at a matter of fact enter into defining their citizenship. Some have argued by virtue of a Panama Canal agreement there should be no questioning of McCain’s birth as being on USA soil. Obama enablers apparently could not stretch McCain’s situation to include Obama in a Senate resolution but I believe the Obama enablers had McCain’s situation in their pockets ready to use if McCain had won the election.
The writings of Founders and records will show that Franklin and Washington and probably others were well aware of Vattel and it was Franklin who had copies of Vattel’s books who suggested that the drafted Constitution be revisited to incorporate the the Founder’s intent to have a ‘natural born citizen’ as a requirement for POTUSA. Cruz being born and resident in Canada for four years of a USA citizen mother and a Cuban father does not meet the POTUSA requirements as far as I am concerned. It can be argued that the USA shorts Itself from very able and really Constitutional people by the Founders use of words but I believe the Founders were men of wisdom beyond their times and did their best to lay out a document ‘to form a more perfect union’ for generations to come. There are and will be men and women to carry the Founder’s intentions.
This is hardly a unique case. American citizens are born abroad all the time to U.S. citizen parents serving in the armed forces.
Vattel 217 spells out that McCain would be deemed ‘born in country’ for any such citizenship questions because his father has not ‘quit’ his nation - instead he was serving it.
So if Vattel is your authority, McCain would be qualified.
If the U.S. Constitution is your authority - and really it should be - then of the three types of U.S. citizen mentioned in the Constitution - which is McCain? Obviously he was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. So is he a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen? Or do you want to “twist” the meaning of the Constitution to come up with a new type of citizen not mentioned in the Constitution?
Eleanor E. Daragh was born on November 23, 1934 and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz was born in March of 1939.
You weren’t taught about Natural Born Citizenship, which is just exclusive for a sitting President, requirement of jus solis being born in United States. Never said McCain wasn’t a citizen, he wasn’t born inside the United States so can’t be President as he’s not natural born citizen.
Zero? We have no evidence of American birth, who his real parents are, and we have no evidence he’s even a citizen. I personally believe he is an illegal alien, most likely foreign born as well since that’s what he told everyone up until 2007. Something has been covered up and it’s not for a sex change operation.
Let’s assume Stanley Ann Dunham was his mother. If she dropped him in a foreign country in 1961 — Section 301 (a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was the relevant citizenship law at the time, meaning requirement was that the parent had to have been physically present in U.S. at least 19 years old to confer citizenship. She was born Nov 29, 1942 and was 18. She could not have conferred citizenship to a foreign born son ACCORDING TO THE LAW AT THE TIME. Just an example.
What kind of ‘citizen’ do you think McCain is and why do you think as you do? I have already told you where I see McCain fitting in. If you would choose to think/reflect about what was presented instead of pontificating about your take on three kinds of citizens the discussion would end. As an associated question to/for you I ask ‘Where does the legalization of illegal immigrants fit into your take on kinds of citizenship under currently proposed resolutions’? especially as to being eligible for POTUSA.
Yes. You twist the constitution to fit your needs for some fourth type of citizen. You say you follow Vattel then ignore Vattel 217.
Non citizens must be naturalized. Naturalized citizens are not eligible. Obviously.
Of course the Founders were well aware of Vattel. They were well aware of a lot of people. They studied literally dozens of philosophers and political writers.
Vattel was a writer on international law, and was influential in that sphere. There's nothing to suggest the Founders paid the slightest attention to him when it came to citizenship, or a lot of other things, for that matter. He believed the government should control religion and restrict freedom of speech, and that only the upper class should be able to keep and bear arms. They clearly rejected him on all those points, and there is nothing to even faintly suggest they followed his ideas on citizenship.
And no, there is nothing to suggest that Ben Franklin was the person who pushed the natural born citizen qualification. The person who did that was John Jay, and there’s nothing to suggest he did anything other than write a letter to Washington.
IIRC, Obama’s mother’s age came into play. She was a minor.
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.