Why has he NOT produced it?
Because he does NOT have that document or is unable to satisfy the requirements!
...and he claims to be a "Constitutional scholar".
Posted on 03/09/2016 6:42:13 AM PST by CodeJockey
I was born on a USAF base (Pepperrell AFB St. John's NFLD Canada) and of course my father was a US citizen at the time. He was actually born in Kentucky. We moved to Myrtle Beach AFB when I was around six months old.
I barely remember when I was very young, maybe around five or six having to perform some kind of ritual declaring my allegiance to the US. I have some form declaring my citizenship at that date. I had to get it out a few weeks ago when my son joined the NC National Guard to verify I was a US citizen.
So how come I was not a US citizen until I took the oath even though I was born of a US citizen on a US AFB in Canada, but Ted Cruz was one immediately at the time of his birth.
If I had know I was eligible to be President of the Unites States, I would have perhaps became a lawyer or maybe a community organizer. .
The "criteria" you speak of were in laws passed by Congress. Congress cannot amend a provision of the Constitution, which is what the Natural Born requirement is, without going through the procedures outlined in Article V.
ML/NJ
Why has he NOT produced it?
Because he does NOT have that document or is unable to satisfy the requirements!
...and he claims to be a "Constitutional scholar".
I actually have several birth certificates. One from the province on NFLD Canada, one form the Basilica of St John the Baptist and one from the actual US AFB hospital.
Anyhow this was in 1958.
As far as my son joining the NC national guard and them wanting my proof of citizenship, I guess they just do extensive background checks now on recruits. Not sure if it would have mattered, but they did.
But I will get out my naturalization form and see exactly what it is and follow up.
When were you born?
I don’t believe that is the form I have. I’ll check tonight.
Obama’s father was not a US citizen.
That describes my situation exactly!
The document states that the person “acquired” citizenship at birth. Not the same as being natural born.
Obviously you are a legal scholar. So now please give us lesser minds a citation
I tell you what . . . I will start the game first. Below is a quote from Wikipedia. Of course thats not the final word . . . but till you cite something its alot more than hot air. Pretty sure its too much reading and thinking but . . . .
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning.
The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States.
Many scholars have also concluded that those who meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at the moment of birth", regardless of place of birth, are also natural born citizens, but the matter remains unsettled.[2][3]
[2]. Williams, Pete (January 19, 2016). "'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away". NBC News. “The emerging consensus of the legal experts, however, is that being 'natural born' means becoming a citizen at the moment of birth, as opposed to achieving it later through the process of naturalization....”
[3}. Maskell, Jack (November 14, 2011). "Qualifications for President and the 'Natural Born' Citizenship Eligibility Requirement" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2012. In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth,' and are 'natural born,' as opposed to 'naturalized,' U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.
I love these hard-hitting fact-based posts.
It’s very simple.
Jacobins will do anything to stop a true conservative like Ted Cruz.
This is going to be a little delicate, but were your parents married? If so, there would be little need for proof, children born in a marriage are considered to be the fathers issue. If not married it’s gets more complicated.
Governor LaPage of Maine says both his daughters were born in Canada and he had to have them naturalized.
Bureaucrats! Some bureaucrat gets something into their heads and they’ll make people jump through their hoop.
>>> Obviously you are a legal scholar. So now please give us lesser minds a citation
Never claimed to be.
This subject is not that hard to understand.
>>> I tell you what . . . I will start the game first. Below is a quote from Wikipedia. Of course thats not the final word . . . but till you cite something its alot more than hot air. Pretty sure its too much reading and thinking but . . . .
Ok.. so you cite Wiki, unnamed scholars, and the media???
My turn....
1. See post #26 and the link to 4 Supreme court cases which re-affirms the definition understood by our founding fathers... Citizen Parents and born within jurisdiction.
2. During the controversy in 2008 over Obama’s run for president, the court consistently “PUNTED” to congress... so let us assume that Congress once again should be relied upon to settle the issue of what Natural Born means. In 2008, at the same time Ambassador Keyes was challenging Obama in Court, the US Senate conducted a legal hearing for the sole purpose of determining if John McCain was eligible to run (since he was born in panama) NOW.. regardless of whether we consider their findings on McCain accurate or not, what is important is to examine the test parameters THEY APPLIED during that hearing and investigation.
The Senate in 2008 applied BOTH birthplace AND citizenship of BOTH PARENTS to John McCain... and finding that both parents were citizens, and his birthplace was on a military installation (considered US soil), they ruled that McCain WAS eligible to be president.
If your parents were married at the time of your birth, you are a natural born US citizen unless you have done something from your 18th birthday forward to invalidate your natural born citizenship. You and John McCain are exactly the same unless you have done something to give up your citizenship. You did not need to become a citizen unless you are leaving something out of your story.
As a result of my work assignment, my daughter has a Canadian birth certificate, not an American birth certificate. What she DOES HAVE is a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. I suspect Ted Cruz has the same.
As a natural born citizen, my daughter was NOT naturalized. She did not have to take a test, meet a residency requirement, swear allegiance, or go through a ceremony. She was a citizen from the very instant I cut her umbilical cord.
To reiterate... She was born with her US citizenship. She was an American citizen from the moment she drew her first breath.
What came later, via the Consular Report of Birth Abroad, is the documentation she would need later in life to prove her citizenship. You can read all about it on the US Department of State website. The website explains it all.
Some may try to establish their own definition of Natural Born vs. Naturalized, but here is the take-home quote from the State Department website that anyone should be able to understand:
"A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. citizen is only issued to a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth"
You can Google the URL yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.
Therefore, Natural Born means US Citizenship at birth, as opposed to Naturalized which means citizenship came at some point after the birth.
It is a very simple concept unless someone's intention is to contort the situation for some purpose. Anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda, and that agenda is not an honest one.
From a media and LIV standpoint, it won’t matter what Cruz’s actual status is because the MSM will do their usual 24x7 onslaught. Sadly, this almost always succeeds as we know from W’s 20 mph DUI story and Mark Foley’s texting, to pick just two examples. Keep in mind with Foley that many people aghast at what he did are perfectly fine with Gerry Studds having a national marine sanctuary named after him.
That is not necessarily so, although from the telling, his birth was in accord with a naturalization act.
Agree. I did not say that, either.
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.