Posted on 02/05/2016 11:33:35 AM PST by Enlightened1
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
According to that criteria, Cruz is a citizen. This still dodges the question of “natural born citizen,” a distinction that the drafters of the Constitution made between senators and representatives having to be a “citizen” and the president having to be a “natural born citizen,” with both parents citizens of the U.S. The reason, as I understand it, was the founders wanted the president, above all, to have no divided loyalties. Obama, who would not have been considered a natural born citizen, has shown what divided loyalties gets us.
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER NO MORE CALLS PLEASE!!
This whole exercise has been about getting Jeb to the front of the line. A brokered convention will do just that.
True and agree, but don’t think they will disqualify Cruz by shopping a federal judge that will agree with them.
I was reading about this in the Wall Street Journal, and this is how the GOPe slips in Rubio via the delegates at the Republican convention. It’s a nightmare scenario.
Here is the article,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/contested-republican-convention-is-possible-1453828686
The qualifier for the Military or Diplomatic is to meet the requirements -” For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen” ie .. serving in some $hithole overseas when you were drafted at 18
Did you not read the following or am I misinterpeting it?
“Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other
parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military
and diplomatic service included in this time)”
and you finish with the following...
.. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to
run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families
to be considered natural-born, for example...
then your comment after the body of the article:
Trump is right unless Ted Cruz can somehow convince the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Cruz gets the nomination, then just know the DNC, along with GOPe, will shop a federal
judge to disqualify Cruz. Then at the Republican convention the delegates will nominate
Mr. Gang of 8 Rubio.
Seems like this one fills the bill.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time).
As long as Ted’s mother lived for 5 years in the US, he’s in.
Problem is the original intent of Natural Born was never clarified, thus the argument over it’s meaning
The Constitution talks about two types of citizens, natural-born and naturalized. As Ted Cruz has never gone through the naturalization process does that make him natural-born? Or is he here illegally, having never gone through that process? Because unless you want to add something to the Constitution that isn’t there, you only have those 3 choices - natural-born, naturalized, and here illegally.
Yes but she was not in the military or a diplomat.
Doesn’t have to be. Those qualifications are meant to include military personnel and diplomats, not exclude others who have lived in the US 5 years.
Please read it again.
What’s a little thing like not being eligible when Rev. Cruz is on his crusade? Let’s just put this aside and hope Alan Grayson is only kidding.
I think this will be an interesting convention.
Here you go,
“with military and diplomatic service included in this time”
It reads as “with” and not “or”.
That means including or in addition.
Yep and that’s the point of the whole post. We need to get this out there now and have this debate.
Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Try this one on for size. Let's say someone looks at his employee handbook and it says "You are eligible for a pension after 30 years of employment ("with jury duty and maternity leave included in this time")".
If the employee never had jury duty or maternity leave, would you conclude he is ineligible for a pension after 30 years of employment?
No, it means that someone who is a diplomat or in the military can include the time they were living overseas as part or all of the 5 years.
(with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
N.B. It does NOT state military and diplomatic service MUST be performed and included in this time, only that they CAN be INCLUDED in the 5 years total.
This is a pretty dumb interpretation.
It would disqualify the first 8 presidents, none of whom were born in the “United States” or were citizens at the time, as the U.S. didn’t exist until arguably 1776 at the earliest.
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.