Posted on 01/13/2016 8:00:06 AM PST by conservativejoy
As We the People - both individually and collectively - posses the sovereignty in the U.S., our offspring are the functional equivalent of he King's offspring in England-i.e., "natural born" citizens of the U.S., regardless of where they are born.
AFAIC, that settles it.
Wait. You're addressing that to me?
I've always acknowledged both naturalization acts.
What evidence is there that the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Article II presidential eligibility clause was inspired by and drawn from English law?
No, I am not addressing it to you .
In general, if anyone is going to put in the 1790 Act in their analysis - then they also need to put in that James Madison , not just any Founding Father, took it out when he repealed that law. He chaired the committee.
It is incomplete and misleading analysis without it.
January 20, 2009.
The swearing-in of a self-admitted foreign national as President of the United States.
The hard fact remains that if someone with standing brings a law suit to have Senator Cruz declared ineligible for the presidency it will go up to the SCOTUS and the precedent that there is does not look good for his being eligible. Although there is not firm decision on point in the SCOTUS there is a good bit of dicta and there is also evidence of Framers' intent that does not look good for his being found eligible.
The Great Pretender got a free pass and so did the late Edward Kennedy in Hopfmann v. Connolly, but I doubt if Senator Cruz would get such a pass, given the leanings of our judiciary.
What’s interesting is that in the 1790 Act, they codified a definition of a Natural Born Citizen.
And since it would be unconstitutional to change by statute the definition of a Natural Born Citizen, then weren’t they simply reiterating the definition as believed by the Founders?
There is also evidence of the Framers' intent that does look good.
Starting page 8 is a review of the situation by someone who was INS Chief COunsel - not sure if he held the title at that time.
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2068&context=mlr
All one can do is make a reasoned argument and come to a conclusion. That conclusion doesn’t mean it was the reality.
I don’t know the answer. All I want to do is be fair to the analysis with the knowledge that James Madison is the one that took out the definition.
Charles Gordon: “And
the
issue
of
presidential
eligibility
is
not
necessarily
settled,
even
if
we
were
to
accept
the
thesis
that
the
1790
act
was
entirely
a
naturalization
statute.
The
Constitution
does
not
speak
of
naturalized
citizens
but
rather
qualifies
only
“a
natural-born
citizen.”
Barrister, I agree with you.
But, there is absolutely NO ONE willing take this up (see below); the challenge is deemed moot
Again, my understanding is that only the HOR and/or the EC had standing to challenge BHO’s election in 2008. No one did because...
well...
rayciss!
I will, once again, refer you to the “Cletus Interpretation” of natural-born citizen in my previous post.
To wit, both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. If born on foreign soil, at least ONE parent should be in service to the USA (military or government administration).
An opponent in a primary or the general would have standing. So also would an individual authorized under state law to control and decide upon ballot access in that state have standing to allow or deny ballot access.
If they have standing it would proceed at least in regard to standing.
You do understand the legal concept of standing?
From the lay legal, Standing is demonstrated by the person bringing the suit having been harmed and being able to show that harm. The key to “standing”, to which it is unlikely anyone will have such standing is because although they may be able to say they may be harmed in the future, standing is for harm already done. Our civil legal system is designed to redress persons harmed (past tense), not as a preventative for a hypothetical future harm.
The only stop-gap is when Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College, after the election. My understanding is that it requires more than one Representative to object to certification “for cause”.
Once a President is sworn in he is President regardless of how he gets there.
Are you saying that a candidate being opposed by someone ineligible to oppose him or her is not harmed by the illegitimacy of the candidacy?
Not until the election is finished, that is when “harm (loss of election by plaintiff) caused by a defendant empowers standing”.
Then, once past the election, it is doubtful, considering the magnitude of the case (POTUS) that any court would wish to be the one to wreck what has worked more or less smoothly for 230+ years. Courts don’t like to get involved in politics.
Law is not necessarily common logic.
Might as well dive in head first. But Cruz knows the Constitution, loves our Constitution and I must wonder how he manages to define that he is a NBC given he feels Bo-Rock was never won. What does he have in mind with the scenario we see at the moment? There is something that seems to be under the radar awaiting the time to roar out of the deep. Thanks for posting this BTW. Like all Americans we wait w/patience to see what the brew might be. Bitter or delicious.
Read
Yes, I can. I read the article carefully when it first came out. It is very noteworthy in that it cites virtually no authority for the assertions it makes and relies upon little more than unsupported assertions. But, keep in mind that this is the law review that the Great Pretender in the Oval Office was president of and,while he was President of it, failed to write any notes in it, nor pen any forewords or introductions to any issue and did not contribute to any article in it. Have you ever had to write a legal brief?
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.