Posted on 01/12/2016 10:29:09 PM PST by RC one
Edited on 01/13/2016 12:11:17 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.
what decision would those be? The general concensus is that he can not seek a declaratory order. as far as I knew. If he can, he should.
he is, without a doubt, the least natural born American we have ever had for a president. It’s beyond alarming. We should not rush to replicate the experience IMO.
I don’t put much faith in what the Washington Times writes.
Thanks for the link to the Cruz “interview.”
We can discuss this again after the County GOP Precinct Chair reveals his identity.
he’s not a NBC. It isn’t baloney.
The conditions to be a “natural born Citizen” are (1) birth in the United States (2) to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” when the child was born. No statute has been written that says differently. To do so violates the Constitution. As an example, the The 1790 Naturalization Act had wording describing a “natural born citizen” was repealed and replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act which dropped the “natural born” wording. It did so because the 1790 violated the meaning that was intended by the Framers. To change that meaning would require an amendment to the Constitution. Let’s look at the Framer’s intended meaning:
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.” That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
What did the Constitution mean by the term, “natural born Citizen?” To get that answer, we need to examine David Ramsey. In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen” (1789). It was a very important and influential essay, published the year of the Constitution’s ratification, defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
In Ramsey’s essay, while not using the phrase “natural born citizen,” he described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright (his term for “natural born Citizen”) after the Founding. He referred to citizenship as a birthright which was a natural right. He told us that birthright—”natural born citizen”—was one where the child was born in the U.S. of citizen parents (note the plural form for parent). That is his definition for “natural born Citizen”. There is little doubt that how he defined birthright citizenship meant the same as “natural born Citizen,” “native,” and “indigenous,” all terms that were then used interchangeably.
In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as Ramsay did. Emer de Vattel, gave the definition in his highly acclaimed and influential, “The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns,” Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers, such as John Jay above, would have defined a “natural born citizen” the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generation of citizens which the Framers called “natural born Citizens.” It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified.
It’s the Washington post and it was written by a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
Birthers demanded that Obama prove he was born in the USA, and then those who supported Obama acknowledged that view by providing their proof. So now, Cruz doesn’t have to meet the same standard? That’s one giant step down the slippery slope to the loss of our sovereignty.
“Your view and backup contradicts the current 21st century understanding that Cruz’s status comes from the constitution under the meaning of natural born.”
Please note, that is not my view. It is the actual language of the Constitution, the language of the Title 8 statutes, the language of Sir Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case, the language of Blackstone, etc. Politicians, attorneys-at-law, some jurists, and many others have been busily obfuscating and destroying the evidence ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the original language and original definitions and meanings are there and very easy to understand for anyone willing to read and comprehend their basic simplicity. Natural born citizen means exactly what it says. Anyone familiar with natural law, its definition, its historical origins, and its relation to the Constitution knows full well statutory law cannot make a person natural born anything. That is why the word “natural” is in the phrase to indicate it is not an artificial, manmade, or unnatural law. The Congress has he power to “make” laws by legislating the. Congress does not have the power to ‘make” a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens exist in Nature without the participation of government to birth the child into citizenship. Government only has the power to “make” a person a citizen at birth or after birth when that person would otherwise be without that citizenship if not for the government act. This is what is called naturalization, whether at birth or after birth.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1150 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION...
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever.†For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:...
(5) “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
Anyone else who argues anything else must conform to the natural law, the Constitutional limit of power to the establishment of an uniform Rule of Naturalization to make aliens to be considered as citizens, with due respect given to the binding case precedent of Calvin’s Case 1608 in which Sir Edward Coke defined naturalization as (datus) or subject made versus the natural born subject or subject born (natus) by virtue of natural law. So these people have to answer to the historical legal precedents, Constitutional restrictions, and cease the derogations of their authority.
No doubt they did and did EVERYTHING they could do, to keep it quiet.
Yeah...It’s shite!
Not baloney..
You can twist your nickers into any shape you want by quoting long dead pre-constitution scholars all day long.
It does not change what is accepted today.
I have one question. When did Ted Cruz become a US citizen? Both of his parents were Canadian citizens at the time of his birth, so wouldn't he have to have applied for US citizenship?
The more I follow this, the more cynical I become. Obama opened the door concerning eligibility to be President, the Cruz situation would burst it off its hinges!
I like Cruz and he is my second pick. Both Both(Both being the keyword folks) parents have to be US citizens. He is not a NBC, that the end of this discussion. Bat it around all you like but those are the facts. Glad it came out in the primary as the liberal media would have annihilated him on this. Sure they give Obama a pass not so much for us.
They recognized that they were not NBCs because they were not born on US soil and/or were not born of parents who natives. they were still true patriots who had pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause and, as such, were quite reasonably eligible to be POTUS.
They wisely recognized that the right of a citizen to be eligible should die with them however and incorporated language into the constitution that would make it so.
This is what I was taught in freshman US history 101.
Thereafter, only a NBC would be eligible, IOW, only a native son born of native parents.
assuming his mother was a citizen, he was naturalized by statute, not by any other process.
I’m not convinced... despite your convincing argument.
Why would you want to shut off discussion unless your claims to Cruz’s status are too weak to win the argument?
That is regarding citizenship. It does not address the type of citizenship. We only have two kinds...not three as you would like.
Naturalized by statute.
Natural born
It's the natural born issue we are discussing.
Taking into account that the original intent carry's the weigh here. Not natural law.
The intent was to protect the government from foreign influences.
What you are trying to do is argue that there are three classes of citizen.
You have placed Cruz in that created class and removed 2 of his rights in the same way that you would a foreign born immigrant. He is not a immigrant. He has those rights and is natural born according to the constitution.
This is not just my opinion thankfully..
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.