Posted on 05/06/2013 9:44:33 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“Another birther controversy could be brewing for 2016,” MSNBC host Chuck Todd informed on Monday. Though this time aimed at a Republican: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was born in Canada. While Cruz likely doesn’t face any real eligibility problems, Todd acknowledged, “questions are being asked.”
Snip~
How exactly is “natural-born citizen” defined? Since Cruz’s mother was born in the U.S. and his father became a citizen in 2005, Todd explained, going on to list similar scrutiny faced by President Obama, George Romney, and John McCain.
“The legal evidence seems to side with Cruz,” Todd argued, “but there is a grey area, and that may be all his opponents need.”
“It’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born,” Peter Spiro, a professor at Temple University, stated in response to Todd’s earlier question about how the term is defined. To clarify, Todd summed up: “If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad, no matter where, if they are U.S. citizens, if…one of your parents is a U.S. citizen — then that should qualify as natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Again, article II, section 1.
Your reply does not address the point to which you are responding. Ted Cruz cannot be a "natural citizen" because he shares the circumstances of birth with a person the supreme court had stripped of citizenship.
It is absurd to argue that someone who could have been stripped of citizenship, is a "natural citizen."
You say I'm wrong, and then seek to explain how by citing court deliberations. I have looked at the makeup of the Majority in that decision. Northern Republicans and one Louisiana Democrat (Creole Country) against two Democrats.
The fact that the court intentionally ignored the Debates on the 14th amendment, and the Civil rights act of 1866, as well as completely ignoring the war of 1812, leads me to believe their decision was simply the result of wanting to create a political rebuke of Democrats, and may have had nothing to do with what the law actually was. The sought out the law they wanted to justify their decision, and weren't interested in looking at anything that would not.
The Era after the civil war was full of examples of Republicans trying to shove Democrat's faces into Racial rebukes. It was the era of "the bloody shirt" and the animosity appears to have extended to the courts.
115 years? Let's see, 2013-115 = 1898. You are citing "Wong Kim Ark." The lynch pin of most subsequently incorrect understanding of Article II.
A 6 to 2 decisions pitting Mostly Northern Republicans against two Democrats, in which they ignore the Debates on the 14th amendment, and the Civil Rights act of 1866, as well as ignoring the Entire War of 1812, all to land in Calvin's court in a Nation who've very principles on Subjectship we rejected when we became a nation.
And of course you take it as a matter of faith that the court COULDN'T have got this wrong, and that the most Liberal interpretation of their ruling is the correct one.
That about sum it up?
I suppose if I thought the court system was infallible, I'd simply believe everything they said too.
Excellent analysis.
BTW....
Acceptable documents for citizenship at this link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/436.407
I find it interesting if you are a true natural born Citizen and have no passport and no state-issued drivers license that does citizenship verification you will not have ‘acceptable’ papers according this.
Most natural born Citizens of the US do not have this ‘proof’ since most live in states that do not do citizenship verification and most do not have passports.
If you NEED one of the other proofs of citizenship then you are basically NOT a ‘natural’ Citizen. Your citizenship is dependent on a law that lead to the creation of the forms of proof of citizenship. You may be a ‘born’ Citizen. And many, many are. But you are not a ‘natural’ Citizen.
This website says it in simple terms.
http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/start_here/4birth_abroad.htm
“If the child returns to the U.S. without a Form FS-240 being filed, an application may be made for a Certificate of Citizenship. Obtaining this certificate involves presentation of basically the same documentation required to obtain a Consular Report of Birth. Under law, the Consular Report of Birth and the Certificate of Citizenship are equally acceptable as proof of citizenship. File USCIS Form N-600 (Application for Certificate of Citizenship) with your nearest USCIS office. “
To be ‘granted’ citizenship via an act of Congress form FS-240 is needed. A natural Citizen needs no such paper work.
Sidebar. Note that I split ‘natural’ and ‘born’ and indicate each stands on its own when talking about Article II, Section 1. I continue to believe this a valid way to look at what the founders did. They took every comma, every capitalization and every punctuation seriously and ensured technical accuracy. They also wrote in accurate, but plain, English. ‘Natural’ and ‘born’ are adjectives that provide definition to a target noun. In this case a proper target noun - Citizen. The is no ‘term’ ‘Natural Born Citizen’. If the term had been unique and ‘created’ uniquely by the founders they would have capitalized all three words. They did not. To hold the office of President you must be a Citizen. And what characteristics must you have a a Citizen. You must be natural - owing your citizenship to no man-made law that may be put aside by men. And you must be a born Citizen. A born Citizen is a Citizen FROM birth. Note - ‘FROM’ not ‘AT’. It means you must have never relinquished your Citizenship at any point. There is no hyphen, there is no ‘undefined term’. The words natural and born are simple adjectives that put specific requirements on the Citizen who is to hold the office. ‘natural born Citizen’ = ‘natural Citizen and born Citizen’. Many cite the ‘born Citizen’ to indicate the eligibility of requirement of Article II, Section is fulfilled. They indicate it is Citizen AT birth. This inaccurate. It is Citizen FROM birth. There can be no breakage in citizenship. But even if they properly indicated FROM birth they only have half the requirement. The requirement of a ‘natural Citizen’ means no man made law dictates your Citizenship. It is ‘natural’. Hopefully by showing that ‘natural born’ is not a magic term CREATED by the founders we can understand the requirement of Article II, Section 1.
We’re not going to agree, you and I. And I suspect this topic is going to be discussed ad infinitum.
At this point we don’t even know if Cruz is going to run, do we? I like him very much, and I would vote for him. But we’ll see what happens.
In light of the fact that we are not going to change each other’s minds, I’ll just wish you a good day.
Yes, I understand the point rxsid was trying to make...thank you. I provided legal and Constitutional evidence that Ted Cruz is not a “naturalized” citizen.
I wonder what “divided loyalties” Cruz might have. Would he take up arms for Canada? Cuba?
Look, like I said, we’re not going to change each others’ minds here. I don’t see a need to keep repeating myself.
Here is the problem. You have what I believe to be, a not only wrong but dangerous understanding of what is the truth. If not confronted, you will continue to spread wrong information and thereby mislead the understanding of others.
It would be shirking a civil duty to let someone spread incorrect information about such an important issue.
So I ask you, what should I do?
See, we go completely off the rails when we compare the case of the Muslim enemy in the White House to the case of Ted Cruz's birth. Some kind of chicanery occurred when Obama was born, but I doubt anyone will ever know just what it was.
Well, what you could do is shove your arrogant attitude where the sun doesn’t shine.
That work for you?
You can’t pick and choose here. I am sure you can make the case for a number of people that do not meet the qualifications under ArtII that might make great presidents. But our founding fathers saw fit to limit the pool of potentials, and for obvious good reason.
Good, I couldn’t tell, hadn’t seen you a lot on “those” threads but of course I wasn’t on all of them.
See, we go completely off the rails when we compare the case of the Muslim enemy in the White House to the case of Ted Cruz’s birth. Some kind of chicanery occurred when Obama was born, but I doubt anyone will ever know just what it was.
All anyone can go on at present regarding the circumstances of 0’s birth is what he has claimed (until more evidence is made public, which I am sure it will be.
0bama: supposedly born in HI to a foreign national father and US citizen mother (probably none is factual but we’ll play the game.
He is not a NBC (if the above is true) since one parent was not a citizen of the US. If you toss in a purported Kenyan birth, then he is doubly not a NBC.
Ted Cruz: Born of a non-US citizen father and US citizen mother, on foreign soil
He is doubly not a NBC due to foreign soil birth and non-citizen parent.
It’s really quite simple. And if you think Cruz is a NBC, then obviously 0bastard is as well (if his publicized birth parents/circumsances are factual, which I am 100% sure they are not, but that remains to be seen.)
Little jeremiah, with all respect to you, I’m done playing the game. We disagree here, and it’s probably not even a pressing point, since Ted Cruz may not run in 2016. He is, after all, a newbie in Washington.
I said my piece, gave my evidence-—both legal and Constitutional-—and it can be accepted or refused.
“The fact that the court intentionally ignored the Debates on the 14th amendment, and the Civil rights act of 1866...”
This is normal for a court. They are less concerned about what was proposed, and more concerned with what was passed. Courts resort to ‘legislative intent’ when they have no other options, because it is very hard to figure out years later why a majority voted for some wording. The debate is often more about scoring political points with constituents than it is with what passed, or why.
The WKA ruling discusses the Founder’s original intent for NBC by reviewing what it meant at the time it was written, and passed without debate. When they go on to the 14th Amendment, they did what every court does, and looked at the wording that passed.
That work for you?
It is exactly the answer I expected. It identifies you as being unconcerned with what is truth, and whether or not you damage others by spreading untruths.
It is also as well thought out and rational as anything i've read from you to date.
Your argument contradicts that of Justice Black in Duncan v Louisiana. I will further point out that he is SPECIFICALLY discussing the 14th amendment.
Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.
You’ve done an excellent job of explaining that the word “naturalization” has multiple meanings. All citizens are naturalized but non-citizen, foreign born immigrants with no previous ties to the US can go through a statutory process of becoming naturalized US citizens.
As the Supreme Court has ruled in Schneider v. Rusk (1964),
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.”
Yes the Court used the colloquial term “native born” to be synonymous with “natural born.”
It’s really quite simple, Citizens of the United States at Birth can be President and naturalized citizens cannot be president. There is no distinction between a Citizen of the United States at Birth and a Natural Born Citizen that has ever been found in court rulings or statute.
The Supreme Court has not made a distinction based on choice of preposition, “at” or “by” birth.
For example: In Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
SCOTUS went on to say: “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
There is no distinction in case law, administrative law or statutory law between a Citizen of the United States AT Birth and a Citizen of the United States BY Birth. Only the preposition “at” is used in the US Code.
“And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah. Harry Reid and Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and John McCain...all voting on principle! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There’s been a lot of time to reverse Wong Kim Ark. It hasn’t happened and its been cited as “stare decisis” as recently as last year.
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Yes, I know. Any court or judge who disagrees with you is stupid and corrupt. Save yourself the trouble of writing it again.
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.