Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]

birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

[DiogenesLamp]

You are simply wrong. There are only two forms of Citizenship, in the United States: 1.) Natural Born 2.) Naturalized The only intent of the Founders was to make sure that Naturalized Citizens could not become President. If you became a Citizen at the moment of birth, you are, by definition, a Natural Born Citizen. No legal expert in the entire country disagrees with me on this point.

According to Kansas58, here is a picture of our next American President.

He isn't an American yet, but he will be by the time he gets here.

[DiogenesLamp]

5. When did such a ready convenient status of being called an American citizen regardless of birth begin ???

5. 1952. Immigration and Nationalization Act, Section 301(g)

It started in 1952? How did they get it into the 1787 US Constitution? Time machine?

[noinfringers2]

You imply there already is already a definition of ‘natural’, in the context of birth I assume. What references do you use as there appears to many takes on what the term means.

[HawkHogan]

You’re right. I definitely see the plausibility of someone living in China his whole life after being born in one of those “California maternity hotels”, then moving to the United States and immediately running for President.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

The reason nobody wants to touch the issue is for fear of being labeled a racist since Obama is black. They fear it would be a career ender.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Has Ted Cruz ever said he wanted to run for President? Why is this an issue?

[MamaTexan]

He is quoted sixteen times more often by the Founding Fathers than Vattel. And he uses ALL of the words “piracy,” “felony,” and “high seas,” not one of which are ever used by Vattel in his book.

You talk much, yet source nothing. The put up or shut up window is now closed.

Have a nice day.

[DoctorBulldog]

Also, those who think being born abroad to a U.S. parent automatically confers Natural Born status are sadly mistaken.

They obviously don't know anything about the 1971 ruling by the SCOTUS in Rogers vs. Bellei:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=401&invol=815

"Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing [401 U.S. 815, 830] rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

4. The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . ." United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 475 (1917). See United States v. Ness, 245 U.S. 319 (1917); Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (1928). And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress [401 U.S. 815, 831] responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S., at 311 . But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 673 -674. Then, too, the Court has recognized that until the 1934 Act the transmission of citizenship to one born abroad was restricted to the child of a qualifying American father, and withheld completely from the child of a United States citizen mother and an alien father. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.

Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei [a child born abroad] and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.

Thus we have the presence of congressional power in this area, its exercise, and the Court's specific recognition of that power and of its having been properly withheld or properly used in particular situations.

VI

This takes us, then, to the issue of the constitutionality of the exercise of that congressional power when it is used to impose the condition subsequent that confronted plaintiff Bellei. We conclude that its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful, and that it withstands the present constitutional challenge."

Ergo, if Congress has the Constitutional powers to place limits and qualifiers onto a Child Born Abroad's citizenship status, then it obviously doesn't follow a Natural law---of which, Congress cannot bestow and cannot take away through legislation.

Just my twenty bucks worth.

Cheers!

[DiogenesLamp]

Our country is burning and ‘conservatives’ are arguing about irrelevant minutia.

Our arguing will not halt or accelerate the burning. We are arguing for the same reason we are burning. People have become too stupid to govern themselves. I dare say, had my side been able to convince the denser members of the public, we might not now be burning so strongly.

Ted Cruz is more of an American then 90% of the people already in Congress or the Executive Branch. We’re lucky to have him as a Senator and would be even more fortunate to have him as President.

He might make a fine President. But if his citizenship can be stripped away, he can't be a natural born citizen. As he is in exactly the same situation as Aldo Mario Bellei, (Born in foreign country to American mother and foreign father.) and as Bellei's citizenship WAS stripped, he cannot be considered a "natural born citizen."

Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei

Now you might not like the fact that he is not a natural born citizen, but you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with reality.

[Ladysforest]

We do not operate under English common law. ENGLISH common law. Which is what I said and you ignored. I have read enough about the early history of the country to know that the individual states did maintain some of the English common laws, but that the Federal government looked to international law. Common law and English common law are not identical.

On the matter of citizenship, most countries recognize some level of “birth on the soil”, it is how dual citizenship came about. Roman law was referenced, as was English, as was French, etc. The US did not just adhere to English common law after winning it’s independence. It’s common to look to long established laws of other nations and incorporate them.

If ‘birth on the soil” was be all end all, why did the US have to pass so many Acts regarding citizenship?

[Mr Rogers]

No, the reason no one touches it is because the courts decided it over 100 years ago. The first major case was Lynch in 1844, and the last was WKA in 1898. Since then, there has been no doubt about those born in the US of alien parents.

Cruz is actually in a grey area. The courts have never tried to decide if someone born overseas to US parents was a NBC. Traditionally, they have been considered NBCs, but there has never been a need for a formal ruling.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) arguably creates a third case of citizenship, for those born US citizens by being born abroad to US citizens - as was Cruz. (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html)

My guess is that if it came to court, the courts would reject Rogers v Bellei and argue Cruz was qualified as a NBC...but I will grant it is an area in dispute.

[Nero Germanicus]

For Everyone’s Information:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

[Mr Rogers]

We do not CURRENTLY operate under English common law, because we have been separated from England since 1776. However, the common law of the early US followed English common law until our own started taking shape. And the meanings of legal terms used in the late 1700s pretty much ALL come from English common law. In the 1780s, there was no legal language apart from English common law.

[HawkHogan]

It’s strange. You mock the Supreme Court by mentioning how a particular Court ruled that blacks were property. Then you precede to cite one of the most liberal Courts in history, the same court that brought us Roe V Wade, to make your point.

Bravo!!!

[DiogenesLamp]

Vattel’s Law of Nations is not United States Law, which I quote.

My point is simple. "Natural born citizen" is either based on Vattel or it is not. If it is, then Vattel's definition for the children of service members applies.

You can either have Vattel, or you cannot. You can't have half Vattel, and Half English Common law.

[GBA]

You may well be right about that. Cruz has shown himself to be a remarkably intelligent and capable human being and likely will generate a devoted following. I know I will donate to him again.

I won't vote for him for VP or President, though. How many more feel like that? Don't know, but I do know that these sorts of threads go on for a lot of posts and the passion about this issue runs very hot. Many have sworn an oath to uphold their understanding of what the Constitution and being Constitutional means.

If you want them to turn on you and work with passion against you, then by all means, run the Cruz/Rubio ticket or vice versa.

Until this issue is decided, as fit and fine as you or I and anyone else may believe them to be for the job, choosing that ticket will be a very divisive within and against those who contribute much of the passionate heart and soul of the party.

Romney didn't inspire them and he lost. What do think pissing them off will do? Why try to find out unless division is what you want? I'm sure there are others who are just as fit and fine for the job and don't bring this division with them.

[DoctorBulldog]

LOL! You were reading my mind! (See my comment #528, right before yours).

Cheers!

[Ladysforest]

Our own started taking shape after The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 was signed.

So, if you insist that we did indeed operate under ENGLISH common law for many many years, please cite the sources which support this. Please tell us when we finally did fully cast off the laws of England to live under the US law?

[Jeff Winston]

LOL! Did you actually read the graphic?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well according even to the birthers, Chester A Arthur doesn’t fit your requirements.

What the h*** are you talking about? Chester A Arthur is the only one before Obama that DOESN'T fit the requirements, but this fact was not discovered until just a few years ago?

Free Republic seems to have a lot of constitutional scholars who never studied constitutional law. Every Con Law Professor I’ve asked regarding this birther issue has found it to be completely preposterous.

Look, I don't know how smart you are, or how knowledgeable, but the argument that something isn't so because someone else says so is a very old fallacy known as "argumentum ad verecundiam." It's so old it even has a Latin name.

It basically means you can't prove something just by claiming that someone else says so. Authorities are often wrong.

I will further point out, that Constitutional Scholars do not spend any time looking at this topic. It is for them, an inconsequential topic. They merely adopted the common fallacious wisdom on this point. But if for some reason, you feel an emotional need to have constitutional scholars tell you something before you believe it, I have left a big list of Constitutional scholars on Free Republic which support the Vattel definition of natural born citizen.

Here's a link if you want to read some opinions of constitutional scholars.

Additionally, Mark Levin, one of the only national pundits who has a strong knowledge of the Constitution, also believes Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally eligible.

As Cruz is in EXACTLY the same situation as Aldo Mario Bellei, No doubt Mark Levin would regard Aldo Bellei as constitutionally eligible as well, despite the fact that the Supreme court stripped him of his citizenship.

How can someone who loses their citizenship be a "natural born citizen?"