Replies

there's far more evidence the founders intended for any future president to have only one citizenship at birth then any other weird fantasies concocted since 0bama came on the scene

Actually, there is NO evidence that the Founders intended any such thing, Nor could they have because we have NO control whatsoever over what other countries might demand or require in their own nationality laws.

There is no real world situation where dual citizenship could stand as the criteria.

If dual citizenship were the criteria for natural born status, then Donald Trump would also be ineligible - not directly because his mother was British (and she was naturalized before Trump was born anyway) but because HE was. And remains to this day, I assume, since I have never heard a word about him renouncing it.

Why is this important? Simply because it is irrelevant. Donald Trump is a natural born citizen in spite of his dual nationality. The Founders would never have countenanced our nation being marched around by some other country's laws.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

I am sincerely confused with your post: HE was (Trump?) born as a British citizen? How?

My grandmother was English and naturalized as a US citizen before my mom was born, and so my mother had NO claim to British citizenship, as her mother had lost hers when she became a naturalized US citizen. The UK doesn’t grant dual citizenship in perpetuity, merely because you have British ancestors. When my grandmother and Trump’s mother became US citizens, they gave up their rights to British citizenship. Their children also lost that claim.

I like Trump over Cruz (but certainly don’t hate Cruz, and would happily vote for him), and I don’t necessarily think that the ability to claim dual citizenship makes someone ineligible to run fro president.

That said: The BC I’d be interested in seeing is Ted Cruz’s US birth certificate. When was that issued? Showing us his Canadian BC and his mom’s US BC is all fine and good, but the real question would be when did Cruz become a US citizen officially? The ability to get it when he was born (living in Canada or not) would have happened when he was born, I suspect, but when did his parents apply for it?

For the record, I have a son who is eligible for a dual citizenship, but we never applied for it. He has no legal claim to the second country unless I went through the process of getting the second country to acknowledge that he could get it if he made some effort. So, he isn’t a dual citizen.

Countries don’t waste their time chasing after babies who might have a claim to their citizenship, and send the papers in the mail to fill out, like credit card applications. If you want to get your citizenship from a country besides that which you were born in, you must make the effort to do it.

it is WELL KNOWN the Founders wanted to insure no foreign king would ever become POTUS. they also wanted to insure no split loyalties in such a person, at least by birth. This is the EXACT reason they used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ instead of just ‘citizen’, as they had for every other position they defined.

furthermore, they used a term WELL KNOWN to them and those with similar backgrounds. in 1758, a book called ‘the law of nations’ defined the term ‘natural born citizen’ as someone being born of a two citizen parents.

additionally, the US doesn’t actually have ‘birthright citizenship’ (being born on the soil) as some believe was introduced by the 14th Amendment. this can be seen in statements by those who wrote the statement, as well as the statement itself... as the citizenship is awarded to the child, if the child’s parents reside in the state and are subject to its jurisdiction (illegals do not reside in a state nor are they subject to its jurisdiction). Canada is the only developed country that still has birthright citizenship.

therefore, as for BH0bama, his citizenship could only be awarded through his mother... unfortunately, she was 18 and not able to do that under the clause ‘five years after the age of 14’. any claims he was born in hawaii are irrelevant, as the US doesn’t have birthright citizenship. which leaves his citizenship to come from his father. as such, per the definition used by the Founders in ‘the law of nations’, 0bama is not a natural born citizen and should never have been allowed on the ticket, let alone being able to assume the position.

now for TCruz, when he was born, his mother was old enough to transfer US citizenship, therefore he is a US citizen. He was also born in canada to a cuban father... which results in him also being a canadian and cuban citizen. as a bonus, he would also have british citizenship by being born in a commonwealth. therefore, being born to parents of different citizenships, TCruz is not a natural born citizen, as defined by ‘the law of nations’