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.
Not true....The father was a Cuban immigrant with Canadian papers. The mother a American citizen.
That is the problem with your argument. It's a minority opinion and it's only a opinion. There is absolutely no writings at the time to back that up so it's conjecture or opinion. All we have is Hamilton, if I recall, and he said very little, but the legal scholars use that as intent. They also use his original draft language for consideration.
Not a problem. I wish it were not a arguable point, but it is. I accept that. I also have stated my interpretation.
Some of it is common sense...
They would have been fools to create three classes of citizenry when the much of the reasoning for the Constitution and the creation of the US was to shed the old Caste or class system of Europe.
Not true.
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
James Madison, AKA: the author of the Constitution
William Rawle quickly gained a reputation as an able attorney, eventually serving as chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar from 1822 until his death. As a Federalist he served a term in the Assembly, but found that politics were not to his liking. After his 1791 appointment by George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania, Rawle handled the prosecutions stemming from the whiskey riots in the western part of Pennsylvania. He stepped down from this office in 1799.
In 1829, he wrote A View of the Constitution. In this work, he addresses what the term natural born citizenâ means on page 86:
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity¦ Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
William Rawle
The author of this article in the OP also holds the same opinion. it is not a minority opinion and there is an abundance of evidence to support our position. It is also worth noting that many supposed constitutional scholars have held that the 14th amendment confers automatic birthright citizenship to "anchjor babies" despite the fact that the authors of the amendment specifically said that it doesn't.
“You need to go to his site and other places and read his personal story, biography, and history. Some of your misunderstandings and conspiratorial conjecture might be answered there.”
I’ve researched them extensively. I found the dates vary between sources. His father, Ted Cruz, gives different dates in his NPR interview. I have already acknowledged that some or all of his timeline may be true. I already said at the very least Rafael Cruz was a Canadian Permanent Resident, and his Canadian Permanent Resident status would have qualified Ted Cruz for his Canadian citizenship at birth. Assume all of that is true for the sake of discussion. The fact remains that there is no way possible for Ted Cruz to be a natural born U.S. citizen. Being an experienced Attorney-at-law, U.S. Senator, and candidate for election as President, Ted Cruz has the obligation to know there is no possible way he can be a natural born citizen or eligible for the Office of the President. We Citizens of the United States are the last line of defense and many of us are still obligated by our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those domestic enemies may unfortunately include form time to time our own family members, friends, and otherwise admirable political associates. Accordingly, Ted Cruz’s willful disregard of his sworn duties is far more than sufficient cause to question the evidence of his and his parents’ citizenship and other events related to the birth of Ted Cruz in careful detail and independence of sources. No matter who wants to demean such acts of vigilance as mere “conspiratorial conjecture,” doing so is supposed to be the customary duty of all citizens to jealously guard the Republic against all such threats to the rule of law.
Now explain to me how and why an attorney-at-law with the credentials of Senator Ted Cruz is supposed to make such a boneheaded rookie first year law student mistake, where he uses a Federal immigration and naturalization statute that naturalizes a child at birth as the basis for his acquisition of U.S. citizenship, and then tries to claim that this naturalization at birth statute made him a natural born citizen. If a person was a natural born citizen, he wouldn’t need to be naturalized to change his status from that of an alien to that of a citizen a second time. It makes no sense whatsoever. If you are a natural born citizen, you are already a citizen without the need for naturalization. Without the naturalization statute, Ted Cruz could not have acquired U.S. citizenship. Therefore, it is quite impossible for Ted Cruz to be a natural born citizen.
That is entirely wrong.
Forget your contrived concerns for a certain number of classes of citizenship. Stick to the law and cite the laws.
(1) Show me the law that explicitly governs the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by a natural born citizen.
(2) Show me the law that explicitly governs the acquisition of citizenship by a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father. Hint:
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization. § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ... (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Yes, I am aware of all of that, but over time things change.
It’s interesting to note that john Jay who purportedly had the “natural Born” language inserted into the amendment had what I recall to be 2 foreign born children. He certainly was concerned about foreign, (ie: british) influences damaging the newly created country, he would not have been concerned about his own children.
It was still very early in 1790 that they tried to clarify this and insert language to cover over seas diplomats who were very concerned. Like Jay himself.
Recalling also that at this time women had no legal standing, the rights descended from the male but all this has changed.
I think intent is very important here. No expat or diplomat would have voluntarily bore children in a foreign posting who did not have natural born rights.
I think the Convention was silent on this because they just did not want to deal with it at the time and considered it minutia to be dealt with later but they did want to define the requirements for president and it was very simple and brief. But on that day, British influences would have been on their mind all the time.
Over 200 years later, all that is no longer a concern but you certainly want a long term resident and citizen to qualify for president and I believe that is the only concern here and why the interpretation that children of US citizens born abroad to a US citizen Mother or father or Both is natural born.
Frankly, if we ever get a Convention of States going, I would like to see that language changed back to Hamilton’s original draft. (eliminating the term)
It’s real simple, but you are not going to understand it.
I have already said this 50 times on different threads.
Cruz’s eligibility does not come from statute. So I can quote no US code.
Cruz’s eligibility as I have said repeatedly stem from the currently accepted interpretation of the Constitution. I made the case in the best way I can.
Hmmmmm, if this law was in force today, then it would come down to two questions. One, was Cruz the son of a US citizen? And, two, was his father a resident in the US at any time before Cruz' birth? My understanding is the answers are yes and yes.
Because you can’t be a natural born citizen of a country that doesn’t exist yet? If there was no nation yet, how could anyone born before the constitution have been born a citizen, regardless of where they were born? People born here were born British subjects, not American citizens.
There have been numerous ones when the dems candidate got stuck in a crack, but the most prominent one I can think of was the one that allowed Lautenberg to run in Toricelli’s place.
The United States constitution does not change without an ammendment.
Over 200 years later, all that is no longer a concern
In the age of the UN, and globalism, and agenda 21, and diminishing sovereignty, and Barack Obama, etc it's still just as much of a concern as it has ever been.
you certainly want a long term resident and citizen to qualify for president
No, I want the constitution adhered to first and foremost. I do not want a very dangerous precedent set secondly.
Contrived eh?
Let me tell you what is contrived here. This entire eligibility smoke screen is highly contrived and coming from so called self identified conservatives.
It's pretty slimy, the lowest of the low, as is your apparent candidate for putting this shite out there.
For me it is now Cruz or lose. This is due to what has been coming out of the trump camp and from the likes of you.
Someone asked me earlier about damage to the country. I can point out that if you want to see the damage, just look at this forum.
What's unprecedented is this argument and the venom that is emanating from it.
I’m checking out...later
If true, a variation of the argument applies to bar Marco Rubio and Niki Haley from the Presidency.
“It’s real simple, but you are not going to understand it.”
Wrong, and that argument is not going to fly.
“I have already said this 50 times on different threads.”
Said what? Try saying it again.
“Cruz’s eligibility does not come from statute. So I can quote no US code.”
Actually, I saw and heard Senator Ted Cruz state he was basing his U.S. citizenship on the basis of his mother being a U.S. citizen. The only authority for that is the U.S. Code Title 8 statute that I cited and quoted for you.
“Cruz’s eligibility as I have said repeatedly stem from the currently accepted interpretation of the Constitution. I made the case in the best way I can.”
What interpretation? Quote its relevant parts and cite it.
In countering this argument, let me present you with a few paragraphs from Williams Rawle's book: A view of the Constitution of the United States.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship)
Document 23
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84-101 1829 (2d ed.)
It cannot escape notice, that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution. The descriptive term is used, with a plain indication that its meaning is understood by all, and this indeed is the general character of the whole instrument. Except in one instance, it gives no definitions, but it acts in all its parts, on qualities and relations supposed to be already known. Thus it declares, that 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--that no person shall be a senator who shall not have been nine years a citizen of the United States, nor a representative who has not been such a citizen seven years, and it will therefore be not inconsistent with the scope and tendency of the present essay, to enter shortly into the nature of citizenship.
In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
This is a lot tof post so, if you require a history of Mr. Rawles to establish his credibility on the subject I will be happy to oblige in another post.
“It’s pretty slimy, the lowest of the low, as is your apparent candidate for putting this shite out there.”
That is a false accusation. I have no candidate at present. I will likely be asked to serve as a delegate to the Republican convention/s as I have done so before. I am not happy about this disappointing slate we’ve been given to select from. I also find the lack of respect for the rule of law to be abhorrent in the extreme.
“For me it is now Cruz or lose. This is due to what has been coming out of the trump camp and from the likes of you.”
Isn’t that the same kind of reckless partisanship and allowing the ends to justify the means which has perpetuated this natural born citizen eligibility corruption going on two centuries now that got us into this position with Obama and the Marxists? Just think, if our predecessors had the presence of mind and incorruptible faithfulness to the Constitution to enforce the natural born citizen clause as described by Vattel in his Law of Nations, Obama would never have had an opportunity to so badly damage this Republic.
Cruz is the first to do it openly. All the other hid from it, and asserted they were born in the US.
-- What's unprecedented is this argument and the venom that is emanating from it. --
The same argument arose with Chester Arthur and to some extent Obama. What's unprecedented is Cruz gives us a chance to discuss the law on a set of facts that everyone agrees on.
I don't think the volume of venom on this issue is particularly high. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 4. I can think of a few other issues that created plenty more heat and venom here in FR, in the past 20 years.
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.