Posted on 08/14/2013 5:32:18 AM PDT by Perdogg
Contra Ace and Ann Coulter, it’s actually not that complicated.
Yes, Cruz’s story is a little unique but it’s not even remotely complex.
Let’s go to the actual law according to the Customs and Immigration Service
(Excerpt) Read more at drewmusings.wordpress.com ...
I heard on some talk show recently that he was a naturalized citizen.
That law addresses citizenship, not natural born citizenship.
Well that is where we disagree.
I am not sure whether Cruz is eligible.
Honestly, I am not sure. I am equally not sure whether Cruz is not eligible.
I am honestly 50/50. I am a true flip-flop on Cruz.
However I (very much) like what Cruz has to say, for that reason I intend to support him 100%.
If he’s eventually ruled ineligible then what can I say. I tried.
But I am 100% for Cruz.
Now let’s get Palin in there as well.
That way, if Cruz gets bumped, we’ve still got a Plan A.
I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Read your quote.
The 14th Amendment says “citizen” and it never says “natural born citizen”.
Never.
The 14th Amendment does not purport to change the requirements for the Presidency. There is no language in the 14th that does that.
John Bingham, the author of the 14th, was very clear about that. You can research the web for his quotes in 1866 about the subject.
Okay, so if I drive up to, since I'm in the Seattle area, British Colombia and I'm pregnant and go into early labor, giving birth in BC. My child is not an American citizen? Sorry, that's nuts.
Are you suggesting that he was not?
Yes, he was a disaster, in almost every important way.
What does the law say about someone born in a foreign country?
How?
I will vote for Cruz in good consciousness, if he runs.
US citizenship flows to the child at birth (natural born citizen) if one of several conditions are met. These are identified by the subsections of Title 8 section 1401. Here is a summary:
A - born on US soil / jurisdiction regardless of parent citizenship
B - American native or other aboriginal tribe member
C - Born outside of US to US parents
D - Born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent who has been physically present in the US for at least 1 year
E - Born in an outlying position (territory)to a US citizen parent who has resided at least 1 year in the US at anytime prior to the birth of the child.
F - Person of unknown parentage found in the US under the age of 5
G - Person born to US Citizen parent who has resided at least 5 years in the US prior to the birth of the child
H - Person born before noon May 24, 1934 outside the US, who has a US Citizen mother who resided in the US
see details at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)
The above quote was part of Bayard's discussion of qualifications to be President and Presidential eligibility.
Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read and approved by the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the famous Chancellor James Kent, as well as other legal experts of the early United States.
Not one single person ever said he was wrong about his understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.
Why thank you, my good man. As I have stated, I eagerly support Ted Cruz for President.
Cruz runs for president.
Cruz is confirmed as the GOP candidate at the GOP convention.
Several weeks before the election, the Democratic Supreme Court pronounces him ineligible.
Is the election stopped?
Can a second GOP candidate be chosen so late?
Would Cruz's running mate become the GOP presidential candidate?
Or would the default mean the Democrat candidate wins automatically?
Could Obama cancel everything and continue in a 3rd term?
So, like what happens?
No, let's go over what the law was in 1787 when the constitution was written. Subsequent changes in statutory law do not redefine constitutional meanings.
Unless that law was written in 1787 before the Constitution was ratified, it doesn't matter what it says. You can't change the meaning of constitutional terms by passing a law.
If you could, then they could redefine "arms" to mean sling shots, and there goes the second amendment.
I agree. SOLID rules don't exist anymore.
It is the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 that specifically enumerates the power that Congress has with regarding making the rules of naturalization. That means Congress has the authority to say who needs naturalization, and who does not (naturally born as a citizen). Just as the very first Congress (and was signed by President George Washington) established the first rules of naturalization, Title 8 section 1401 is the current law as it reflects the will of Congress under that enumerated power.
No, I want 50 sets of election officials deciding, and I want them to make INFORMED decisions, not knee jerk reaction repetitions of the currently fashionable legal crap.
Statutory law cannot alter the meaning of "natural born citizen." It could make citizens out of the entire Island of Cuba, but it can't make them "natural" citizens.
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.