Posted on 11/13/2014 9:33:46 PM PST by Dallas59
Cruz’s father wasn’t an American at the time of his birth. From what I’ve read, and that could be wrong, he took US citizenship in 2005.***
If being born in Panama to a father who was serving in the US Navy at the time presented a question for McCain, being born in Canada to a non-citizen father who was working on an independent venture (not in the service of the USA) surely would present a problem for Cruz.
*** http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/13/texplainer-could-canadian-born-ted-cruz-be-preside/
Nothing in our Constitution allows the Congress to dominate intrastate commerce, yet it is common in US Law and Supreme Court rulings.
Cruz was born to an American. She was old enough to confer her citizenship to her baby. He is natural born meaning he was born an American, bingo.
If (and I believe it) Obama was born in Canada, his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship onto her baby. The rule was something like the American parent had to be in the United states for 5 years after age 15. stanley Anne was only 18 when she birthed her black baby, probably originally intending to put him up for adoption, in an unwed mothers home in Vancouver.
That's not the criterion.
The criterion is whether a person is entitled to US citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. If so, then the person is natural born. That would apply to Cruz, Obama, Jindal, Haley, McCain, Goldwater, Romney's dad.
The other case is where a person was foreign born but became a citizen via naturalization. That would apply to Kissinger, Schwarzenegger, Granholm. Citizens, but not natural born.
I believe the McCain/Obama choice of 2008 was specifically engineered to damage the Natural Born Citizen clause. (The 2012 election had some of the same qualities as well.) — The New World Order types hate that requirement in our Constitution and want it gone.
He’s the darling of FR, so it doesn’t really matter.
The New World Order types hate the Natural Born Citizen requirement and want it gone, I believe the 2008 election was engineered to set precedent for weakening/destroying it.
“Do you really think that any ACTUAL conservative is going to be given a pass by the media? “
I so agree with that because that’s my own mantra. I guess i’m just asking, why start with a handicap. I just don’t see the point.
Zero did indeed have a foreign bigamist father, but there is little doubt that Stanley Anne whelped him in Hawaii. And, thus, he is natural born.
I believe it to be true; according to Blackstone [here]:
As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.Clearly the state of
natural bornis not a product of naturalization; to claim that it is is to claim that the Congress can alter the Constitution by normal legislative acts (i.e. without amendment) which would defeat the purposes both of having a written constitution and of defining some class of citizen of which naturalization ruled over.
Which is why I also doubt the eligibility of both Obama and Cruz.
When in doubt, taking the most stringent definition is usually the best option: everything that fits within the strict-subset by nature must fit within the containing super-set, but the reverse is certainly not true.
Settled news
Do you have sources showing the contemporaneous meaning of “natural born” wasn’t referring to both parents being citizens? Most of what I’ve heard was that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution “natural born” meant exactly that: both parents.
I have found this more interesting a concept over the past few years, on a less than august level than eligibility to serve as POTUS. My son in law was born in the US of European immigrant parents who did not take US citizenship till a few years ago. He was raised in a home where they spoke both English and (more so) their native language, and he was raised in the customs and traditions of the parents’ homeland. Not a bad thing! He has dual citizenship. He is a very bright honors graduate of an Ivy League school. YET, culturally, he is really NOT American. So many little things that a “native born” American just KNOWS he has to ask about.
There is a reason the Framers chose that ONE place in the Constitution to require not just that the office holder be a citizen, but a “natural born” citizen as they understood that term at the time. They wanted someone as POTUS who had a 100% American mentality that you just don’t get until (at least) the 2nd generation.
Naturalization Acts of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103; April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153; June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163. Grok it.
Who ordered it and then who arranged it down to all the details?
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.