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.
J B Williams is not a legal authority from any perspective.
Williams: “Ted is now a man without a country, according to any authentic documentation.”
No sane person thinks Ted Cruz is not a US Citizen. Many think he is not a ‘natural born’ U.S. Citizen.
“Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president”.......but if you’re black and born in Kenya that’s OK!
Good post.
This is still open for debate. The prostitution of the Intent of the 14th Amendment is what made that possible.
---
With few exceptions, foreign born children are not natural born.
That *swamp theory* was taught to me by the State of Texas during my high school government class.
What about McCain, Panama isn’t a state is it?
?? Did Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz declare sole allegance to Canada? Did Ted Cruz ever have any reason to think he was a Canadian Citizen?
"State of Delaware vital records says, no record of Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz exist. Ted Cruz's mother does not have a US birth certificate."
?? Birth record? Are her parents know and known to have been US citizens? Yes. Does absense of a birth record prevent her from being a US Citizen at birth? No
Possible. But what proof do you have?
Obama was born in Hawaii after it became a State.
There is no proof Obama was born in HI. Except for a statement by ComDem head of Dept of Records. Who refused to certify the COLBs that were released, by whom? Headshake
Obama's entire past is conjured. Created out of think air. Lies on top of lies.
IIRC, Hussein’s Birth Certificate notes that he was born in a Honolulu hospital that didn’t exist at the time of his birth. I think it says he was born at “Straub”. A hospital existed there when Hussein was born, but the name wasn’t “Straub” at that time.
Not sure if it’s true, but something I read a few years ago.
McCain was the Islamic Indonesia kids springboard to the white House.
You are correct that Ted Cruz was born in Canada but you are incorrect that it is the reason he is not a natural born Citizen.
I wonder if you have figured it out yet?
I hear ya. I'm for Trump, but gladly would vote for Cruz if he's our candidate. It seems that the Cruz people will vote for him alone and boycott an election with Trump. The Trump folks would vote for either one. Interesting. Also interesting is that I don't think I've noticed any FReepers who favor any of the also-rans. Just Cruz and Trump.
This is one of those issues on which plain textualism (that under current statutes, Cruz was a citizen at birth) works better than a crabbed sense of original intent, which leads to the claim that Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” because his mother but not his father was a US citizen when he was born.”
That is factually incorrect. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, because he does not meet the millennia old criteria of the paternalistic cultures for a citizen, which came to be described in recent centuries as a natural born citizen.
“This is based on a detailed if disputed reading of British law at the time as limiting British citizenship for those born abroad to those whose father’s were British citizens when they were born.”
Again, that is incorrect, because the British practice was rooted in cultural traditions and common law extending backwards in time for millennia.
“I am confident that of the legislators who ratified the Constitution, not one in a hundred would have known enough to state that as being what “natural born citizen” meant and that Congress could not further define and expand natural born citizenship for purposes of eligibility for President.”
We know for a fact many of them owned and used copies of the works on natural law by Vattel, Puffendorf, Grotius, Cicero, and others related to jus Gentium, the Law of Nations, and Natural Law.
“In such cases, where the original meaning of a provision of the Constitution is so disputed and thinly supported by evidence, textualism makes more sense.”
The idea that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” was somehow supposed to be “so disputed and thinly supported by evidence” is entirely contrary to the facts. The statement is a strawman argument trying to sell the idea of abandoning what was easily and clearly understood by the authors and adopters of the Constitution.
“After all, the Framers of the Constitution not only specified “natural born citizen” but also provided that Congress would have the power to define citizenship as to who would be a natural born citizen.”
Wrong, because Congress has no power to define what is created by Nature and natural law. The Constitution only granted Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. This power to naturalize an alien born child with a U.S. citizen mother and alien father is exercised in the U.S. Code Title 8 Chapter 12 statutes.
“On the whole, if the question were presented in the Founding era, I think that most of the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution would reject the view that, as to Presidential eligibility, the meaning in the Constitution of “natural born citizen” was firmly fixed by the law of Britain and could not be changed by future Congressional enactments as to who was a citizen at birth.”
This claim that, “the meaning in the Constitution of “natural born citizen” was firmly fixed by the law of Britain” is totally false. The definition of a natural born citizen being a person born within the sole allegiance of the father and two citizen parents is an ancient legal tradition of many cultures. Vattel put it into writing as a alternate comparison to the English custom of jus soli citizenship and perpetual citizenship and allegiance. Your conception is only a myth designed to achieve a foregone and false conclusion.
“With that in mind, we have the making of an argument that not just textualism but originalism as well supports Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be President.”
That is quite impossible given the fact he is a naturalized at birth U.S. citizen governed by the unnatural statutory laws for naturalization rather than the natural law and common law tradition of citizenship only by birth in nature and not by manmade dicta.
“You are correct that Ted Cruz was born in Canada but you are incorrect that it is the reason he is not a natural born Citizen.”
It is quite impossible for Ted Cruz to be a natural born citizen, because he wss made an unnatural naturalized at birth U.S. citizen by a naturalization law designed to take alien born children and naturalize them at birth to make them considered as if they were actual citizens at birth.
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.
I am for both Trump and Cruz and will vote for whoever wins the primary and I don’t expect any of the others will win. But I see it just the opposite way. I see more Trump people who are making nasty remarks against Cruz.
It would be interesting if someone were to create a database showing pro-Cruz and pro-Trump FReepers, with another field indicating the “flexibility” factor associated with each. Just for kicks.
The best argument against Cruz's eligibility to an American mother then resident in Canada relies on provisions in British law limiting "natural born subjects" born abroad to children with British fathers. As I suggest though, the deeper point is that in our system, Congress sets the terms of citizenship and effectively defined "natural born citizen" as also including children born of even one American parent. By that definition, Cruz is eligible because he was as a matter of law an American citizen at birth.
Just for kicks.
*****************
How about we elect you to be the kicker and you can proceed at your leisure?
Repeal of the law does mot mean that it was contrary to the Constitution. It is the adoption that matters most for our purposes, not the later repeal.
That’s not a high level exposition, that’s a work of propaganda. It is easy to refute. That article has legs only because the authors are in the nature of legal celebrities.
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.