Posted on 05/03/2016 5:16:13 AM PDT by iontheball
If it's true, it resolves a lot of arguments I have had in the past over this topic.
My understanding is that "natural born" cannot be bestowed by any man made law, yet people always point to the "naturalization act of 1790" . They then overlook the meaning of the words "shall be considered as", and they also overlook the part about forbidding citizenship to the child of a foreign father.
Having Madison state that the addition of those words was a mistake, sweeps away all the other silly arguments.
And what about Santorum (whom I really like, by the way). Was it ever determined if his Italian father was a citizen prior to his birth here in the U.S.? This issue of “natural born” for aspiring Presidential candidates MUST be finally and forever determined in court after this election to end future problems. I am a naturalized citizen and know from citizenship classes I was required to attend prior to citizenship back in the 50’s, that any naturalized citizens cannot aspire to the Presidency or Vice Presidency, and it is my opinion that citizenship by statute is not natural born, but would like it spelled out in a court, and either way that court found I could then support the ruling.
I do NOT care about the legal definition of NBC.
It is CLEAR the founders meant to protect the sovereignty of this nation by having a president who was BORN ON US SOIL and NOT by illegal aliens.
Cruz WAS BORN IN CANADA.
He didn’t care enough about this nation to even drop the Canadian citizenship before he became a senator.
Cruz is a poser in every aspect.
“BS. Persons serving the government abroad are US citizens by birth. You fail civics 101.”
Ok. Tell us...which one of Cruz’s parents were SERVING THE GOVERNMENT ABROAD?
You can’t be that dense.
You make a good point about the draft.
I was in college 1968-1972 very close to the Canadian border. As such, I had a number of classmates who had one Canadian parent, and the ability to claim dual citizenship was, at that time and place, highly prized.
Certainly, any American (such as Señora Cruz) resident in Canada in 1970 was well aware of the US expat community and why most of them were there. A baby boy who could claim natural Canadian citizenship, with an option for US citizenship at a later date should that be advantageous, would have an extra margin of safety.
You should care more than ever.
A dozen attempts to amend the Presidential eligibility requirement (nbC) have been made since 1970. Mostly Dems, but some Repubs have joined and assisted. Issa is one of them. To clarify, a few of those attempts were to enact laws declaring that foreign born persons, who became US citizens, could qualify. While an amendment was far preferable, they realized that doing such may be nearly impossible, so decided to try to do a work-around by getting a law passed. That would be much easier, quicker and have less push-back.
It could be done in the dark, if you would. They are still at it. Looking the other way for Cruz is a clear signal that this effort is ONGOING.
It is a profound action towards Globalization.
I took civics and remember this.
As for Levin, I don’t think he is lying, As said in an earlier post by someone, there are experts on both sides of this. At this point, your guess is as good as mine.
>>> Also, I see alot of people who keep saying we need a SCOTUS ruling on this. I am equally scared of that as I do not believe the courts are infallible and cannot guarantee their loyalties to the country anymore.
i agree. the traitors would like nothing better than to be empowered to “define” something in the Constitution or other founding documents. next thing they will attempt to “define” might be: Divine Providence, Creator, unalienable, natural.
anyone who doesn’t think it can happen - just look what they did with words like “militia”, “arms” etc.... word games are POWERFUL.... just ask satan (his temptation of Christ in the desert). nothing new under the sun.
people overlook the two provisions in both of those laws.
A citizen IF the father meets 2 requirements: actually a resident with intent, and not rejected by some state.
What would today’s people say if, Cruz, were not considered a citizen at birth because some state had some reason to reject his dad. I thought it was, according to today’s standards, “you born with a citizen mom, then you a citizen.”
And it was originally in the paperwork as “citizen of the U.S.” and was pointed out to the framers that it should be “natural born”...interpreted as “on the soil” or being born in the U.S., which is very telling.
1) Being born on US soil is not a requirement for US Citizenship at birth. Even the first Congress knew this and to make sure everyone else did as well, specifically passed the first Naturalization Act (1790) to clarify NBC citizen to include those born beyond the borders of the US. Further, jus soli was not an exclusive and inclusive means of citizenship until the passage of the 14th Amendment.
2) Mrs Cruz was not a Canadian citizen
3) USC Title 8 section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth, is the governing law. Further, USC Title 8 section 1101 - Definitions; defines that naturalization occurs only after birth. It is the conditions of one’s birth that determines how one is naturally born. One is either naturally born a citizen or naturally born an alien. Cruz was naturally born a US Citizen. Has been from birth, has never needed naturalization and will never need naturalization.
Yep, I believe the courts can or will drive the final nail in our countries coffin. The road to hell is paved in good intentions......and then resurfaced with the ignorant.
Very telling indeed. As Americans we all know (or should know) what a natural born citizen is, or at least what the clause was intened for.
This starts on page 334 of the linked to .pdf document.
Moreover, Parliament’s expansion of the definition of “natural born subject” in the eighteenth century sets no precedent with respect to the American provision. In comparison to the American Constitution, the English Constitution is unwritten.118 By the late seventeenth century, England’s Constitution consisted of whatever Parliament declared as law; Parliament had “sovereign and uncontrolable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws.”119 As such, it could “change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom and of parliaments themselves.”120 Parliament certainly had the power to extend natural born status to those who otherwise would have been aliens. The relationship between Congress and the American Constitution is quite different. According to the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 121 to allow Congress the same latitude as Parliament would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbid[d]en, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.122 Therefore, Congress cannot alter who is eligible to run for President by statute. Such a dramatic change requires a constitutional amendment.123 Unsurprisingly, no evidence suggests Congress intended to expand the class of persons who could run for President. Moreover, early commentators agreed that the use of “natural born” in the first naturalization act did not amend Article II. For example, St. George Tuckera professor of law at the College of William and Mary124published his edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries in 1803, wherein he provided his own notes concerning the differences between English and American law.125 With respect to naturalization and citizenship, he cited all of the American naturalization statutes enacted to that date, including the 1790 Act.126 He then concluded that “[p]ersons [] naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural-born citizens, except . . . they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.”127 In any event, Congress swiftly repealed the 1790 statute in 1795.128 This time, debate in the House focused on several issues, including whether aliens seeking naturalization should be made to renounce (1) foreign hereditary titles and (2) any claim to persons then held in slavery.129 The House voted “yea” on the first question and “nay” on the second.130 On January 2, 1795, the bill was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens: “It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday, January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133 Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137
It will take me a little longer to find the links to the notes of the First and Third Congresses that makes the specific statement of the error of the transcription clerk that included the Natural Born phrase.
I thought it was even more interesting when McCain was running. Verrrrry coincidental no?
That would be greatly appreciated. The idea of slogging through a document with at least 334 pages does not fill me with joy.
I didn’t say I didn’t care about the NBC of a President, I said I don’t care about Cruz specifically.
Nor does anyone else on FR.
I don’t need to, for the reasons I gave.
He’s not going to win, so the point is conceded, and moot.
My son was born in a foreign country and I started the process while still in the hospital. You are exactly right. It’s a vulnerable feeling.
I like your argument, it’s right on. I think we also need to have some voice in removing a President who fails his job in an egregious manner, or things come out which prove his position was acquired illegally. Congress should be doing that, BUT don’t hold your breath or Obummer would have been removed long ago. I think the American populace needs to have a “vote of confidence” clause added as an amendment to the Constitution, where the people can rise up peacefully, and demand a President or a party, be removed from office...vox populi.
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.