Posted on 02/06/2016 1:47:14 AM PST by RC one
Edited on 02/06/2016 5:34:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
BOSTON (AP) — Two legal scholars squared off in a public debate on Friday to settle whether Republican Ted Cruz is eligible to become president. Spoiler alert: They didn't settle it.
But the debate at Harvard Law School underscored that conflicting interpretations of the U.S. Constitution can produce different answers. The question has been in the national spotlight since Republican rival Donald Trump suggested that Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, isn't legally qualified to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at pilotonline.com ...
-- I admit that technically Trump is not a dual citizen. --
You didn't just "parade a curiosity," you said that if dual citizenship was a barrier to the office, that Trump is barred because he is a dual citizen. When called on it, you say that "entitled to citizenship" and "having citizenship" is a distinction without much of a difference. IOW, you are determined to hold the position that Trump is, for purposes of determining eligibility for the office, a dual citizen, even though he (technically) isn't one.
I am also aware that you hold that those born foreigners and those born dual citizens are eligible to the presidency.
I don’t disagree with you but there is a lot of US case law that does-Justice Swayne in the previous post for example. I think the SCOTUS would declare Marco Rubio a NBC without a lot of deliberation.
I didn’t say whether or not McCain is “natural born”. I’m saying he at least did SOMETHING to get the situation justified before he ran for office.
Because there are countless supreme court opinions that say otherwise and they will almost certainly be used by the SCOTUS in defining this term once and for all.
[Quote]
It is widely accepted that the constitution is written in the language of the English Common law and the English Common law is clear as to what a Natural Born Citizen is and isn’t.
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
[Unquote]
Swayne’s commentary was in the case law of a Circuit Court, and not the U.S. Supreme Court. The dissenting opinion of Justice Fuller in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
It must a;lso be noted Swayne’s opinion is impeached by a number of other sources, including Scott v. Sandford (1856), which denied the possibility of children born in the United States with alien parents acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth or by birth in the United States. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provided citizenship at birth in the United States, but that citizenship is naturalized citizenship by the legislation of the Constitution and statutes. The Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, and the derivative statutes have no power to make any person an actual natural born person as defined by natural law.
Through some registration process, Ted’s mother had to effectively tell the US that she birthed a son in Canada and that she would like the US to recognize her child as an American. Would this not be an act of the courts to grant the child citizenship through naturalization?
Or, is this simply establishing an equivalent US birth certificate when one could not be obtained at the time of birth? If so, then shouldn’t this document be provided as evidence of Ted’s birth status as anything other than Canadian?
I know... I posed questions... Then my thinking about what actually took place.
Has that been confirmed? I thought it was speculation at this point.
“I don’t disagree with you but there is a lot of US case law that does-Justice Swayne in the previous post for example. I think the SCOTUS would declare Marco Rubio a NBC without a lot of deliberation.”
Each of the very few case law citations are rebutted by other cases and/or by reference back to the core principles found in the legal history. One of the most egregious, of course, being the conflict of interest and false citations used by Chief Justice gray to protect his appointment to the Supreme Court by protecting the pretender, President Chester Arthur.
Countless? You mean without count, there’s so many.
Please post 1 SCOTUS decision that defines clearly the term “natural born citizen”.
Thanks....
Do you really want the current Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution? The same court that found Obamacare to be legal and who manufactured a right to gay marriage out of whole cloth?
I don’t.
Thank you for the clear precise explanation.
Divided loyalty was what the founders wanted to avoid....
Unfortunately we can explain till eternity, but to many who have been confused and with blinders on nothing can shine through.
Its out there on youtube, and elsewhere, its just being shoved under the carpet here because it seems like damming evidence.
I did see a thread earlier this week about it here but the loyalists were going neener neener neener to it.
As the laws are it spells out that because both parents were registered Canadian voters up until 1974 and young Raphael, Teds real name on his birth certificate was born in 1970 i think it essentially makes him a citizen of Canada, and he becomes naturalized, which falls short of being born on US soil and having parents being US citizens.
But instead you get eye blinders and earmuffs on his following.
Cruz has been weighed, measured and found wanting, thats the way it is.
“I’d like to know why everyone is concerned about Cruz and not Rubio.”
We have identified as ineligible far more than just Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Nikki Haley, Michelle Bachmann, John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama, maybe Mitt Romney, George Romney, Chester Arthur, and others have not been eligible.
The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural-home-born-and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien-foreign-born‚ making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.
Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)
Rubio was born in the United States.
Here’s my question. Do you really want the 9th Circuit Court in California to decide? Do you want Paul Ryan or McConnell to say Cruz is not NBC and let that stand as it seems Nancy Pelosi did for Obama’s eligibility?
In the end, the final arbiter on this would be the USSC (or in the case of letting stand a lower court’s decision). And, yes, I realize what a bunch of quislings some of the justices are now, but that’s what we have.
Personally, I think in the end the court would rule it favorably for Cruz, even against its likely sympathy to the Democrat side, SOLELY because it would not want to preclude another ringer (this time openly foreign Muslim, illegal, pick one) like Obama.
Thanks for the citation. I think applying a little logic and reason to the question will bring a great deal of understanding.
There’s no question that a person who’s born in the country to two citizen parents of that country, will naturally possess an undiluted allegiance to the country of their birth.
Obviously, it’s possible for such a person to develop an alloyed affinity (or disloyalty), but the probability is stronger that they won’t.
It’s plain to see that the Framers were attempting to provide the best insurance possible that our presidents would possess a natural, inborn loyalty to this country, and no other.
Cruz should petition for a waiver. Get it out, get it public, get it certified, or he will be dragging that anchor forever.
But i doubt anyone will even accept that line of thinking, especially now, it should have been done a year ago.
Reminds me of salmon, born in a river, they travel to the sea but always return to the original spawning ground of their birth.
Of course thats a totally ridiculus comparision, right?
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.