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

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

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.

[noinfringers2]

You asked ‘ Are children born to illegals on US soil NBC?’
In my frame of reference such children are not NBC because of the requirements for parents to be citizens at time of birth. I believe the Founders wisely considered family allegiance to the USA be as a critical requirement for NBC to the extent possible to be ascertained. When the question arises I not only think of Mexicans or other Latin Americans but also of the two sons of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA. I believe that the Founders wanted to make sure that the requirement for POTUSA was as ironclad as possible to assure a POTUSA had no foreign ties that might compromise their duties to/for the USA. The wisdom of their thinking and writing is being held to test under Obama and his enablers including even government officials.

[Political Junkie Too]

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I only mention the 2nd amendment because that debate is shifting towards why do people "need" guns, as a way of shaming gun owners into having to justify why they want guns.

You brought up the idea that Arizona didn't need to prove records, they only needed to verify facts.

It was the use of the word "need" that triggered my analogy to the 2nd amendment debate.

Debating the "need" to exercise Constitutional rights is a slippery slope that runs the risk of, again, letting the Left dictate the language of the debate. First, it was the need to own guns, now it's the need to prove the public records of other states, next it will be the need to freely exercise religion (Obamacare abortions), speak freely (Obama threatening the press), peaceably assemble (DHS stockpiling ammo), petition the government (nobody has standing), be secure from unlawful search (TSA) or the taking of one's property (wealthiest 1% - I'm waiting for the confiscation of my 401(k)).

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

I meant to add the loss of due process (drones) to the growing list.

-PJ

[Red Steel]

Well, what’s your Fogbow handle Noobie?

[Tau Food]

You didn’t address the question. Would it violate the 2nd Article of the Constitution and the 20th Amendment if Vladimir Putin became President and acted as President?

Well, you insist upon imagining things that in the real world cannot happen. But, let's make this easy and assume that Vladimir Putin did somehow become president as a result of a violation of the Constitution. The only constitutional way to remove a president is through the impeachment process.

Returning to the real world, though, one of the issues in the campaign of 2008 concerned the claims expressed by some that Obama was not a natural born citizen. By selecting Obama, the voters and their electors implicitly resolved those expressed claims in Obama's favor. Had you been an elector, you might have decided the issue differently. Okay.

Seriously, what do you think should be done at this point?

[Political Junkie Too]

Based on my own recent research, I've been moving away from the absolute idea that NBC means children of citizen parents, only because I can't find any historical documentation where this assumption was clearly stated.

I've already suggested that it may have been an inculcated understanding due to the remoteness of America at the time and the assumption that people born here were born to natives of the land, given that travel from Europe took so long. Also, the Preamble to the Constitution refers to establishing the Constitution to secure liberty to "ourselves and our posterity," meaning the citizen people and their citizen children.

That said, from the argument that a born citizen is one who is born in the jurisdiction of the country (and not just on the soil), a legal alien would be under the jurisdiction of the country, but I think that an illegal alien is still under the jurisdiction of their homeland, so their child born on USA soil one day after illegally crossing the border should not be a citizen.

-PJ

[MamaTexan]

Wong Kim Ark

..... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Notice they declared him a citizen, but not a natural born one. In fact, from earlier in the opinion:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Say WHAT?

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes 'natural born'.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of 'citizen' in their decision....

WHY?

Because the question wasn't if Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen, but whether he was a 'citizen of the United States'

------

Since the decision made it plain Wong Kim was not natural-born [due to his parents citizenship], the only other type of citizen he COULD be was one naturalized at birth via the 14th Amendment.

Guess the judges missed the fact the co author of the 14th Amendment said it DIDN'T include foreigners or aliens.

[center column, halfway down]
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

-----

If you love anchor babies, thank the decision of Wong Kim Ark.

[Mr Rogers]

FWIW, the court in WKA said:

” Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”

Someone here illegally is not here “in amity” with the government, and thus would not give birth to NBCs. IMHO.

[Springfield Reformer]

I respect your right to your own opinion, but three times now you have ignored the grandfather clause problem. Granted, it may not be decisive in itself. But I would think if you had a real answer to it, if for nothing else to relieve me of my ignorance, you would at least acknowledge its existence. But you don’t.

And I do not limit the evidence collecting to the founders. DL makes the point, which you completely circumvented, that there were various opinions on the matter. It does not matter to your argument that Rawle was a legal expert. He was just one of many, and many of those had various and conflicting opinions, else you would not even have your quote farm for statements apparently dismissive of parentage. The matter was in discussion, parentage was being raised, and the issue was not settled in the minds of many. I am not asking for extraordinary proof regarding Rawle. I am asking for something which actually qualifies as proof.

You say the birthers have no evidence. But this is not true. What is true is that you have in one way or another dismissed that evidence and now hope that others, like myself, who are trying to give the question a fair hearing, either do not know of the conflicting evidence, or can read your mind and just innately know, as you seem to, that it doesn’t support the birther case, or else just meekly accept your “authoritative” assertion that we are all idiots. That simply isn’t good style in legal analysis. You could never win in a typical appellate court with an approach like that.

As for “absolutely false,” or even “absolutely true,” that is nonsense. We are not talking about divine law, but human law. Men err. Supreme Court decisions display repeated shifts and shades of meaning over time, and some of those shifts are clearly accidental, especially as it relates to what are called “terms of art,” words or phrases given a specific body of complex meaning over time. That is why I said at the outset, unless SCOTUS takes this on, we will not have final certainty.

Am I a birther? Probably, according to you. I am an old man and I was raised my entire life to believe that citizenship, natural born or otherwise, was far more than just being born on this soil. Any animal can do that. The grandfather clause would not have been necessary if that were the case. The quotes you have mined to invoke your reductionist view are noteworthy and valuable to the discussion, but I have learned over time to be wary of quote wars, and I do not consider any single quote to be decisive in itself. Filling in the gaps with rigorous context to achieve true understanding is not a trivial task, and is best left to those with the time, inclination, and ability to do so. Among such you will seldom hear talk of absolute claims of truth or falsity, because human law is shifting sand. Only the divine law endures over time, and human law only survives to the extent it relies on divine law.

So I think our conversation is at an end. My time is precious, and no one is paying me to write the definitive brief for this problem. I leave it to you and other dedicated volunteers and professionals. I do not believe Obama will leave office over a constitutional violation, real or imagined, of any sort. We are past that. His term will expire and he will either leave or find a pretext for remaining in power. My focus right now is gun rights. It is one thing to have a president whose lawless acts will never get him impeached. It is quite another for said lawless one to attempt to remove from us our last practical defense against his mounting tyrannies. That is where I choose to focus my energies.

So if birtherism is where you want to work, go for it. Not for me. But lose the paranoid ad hominem shtick. It’ll never sell in Peoria. Or even Springfield.

Just sayin …

[GBA]

There have been numerous efforts over the decades to undermine the very legal understanding of the term that you, I and others share, that is in fact the historical understanding.

Nothing is immune at this time. I appreciate discourse and accept change as a part of life, good or bad, but do not appreciate the dishonesty.

If the concept can't be changed or you don't like the connotations or whatever, the create a work around by simply changing the definition.

This is the technique I despise the most, whether with NBC eligibility, anytime abortion, and currently gay marriage and gun control, among others.

Can't redo the 2nd? Then redefine a gun to make it illegal or a magazine illegal or the round itself. Lie if you have to or don't have to, it's their end result that's important, not the integrity of the path to get there

They are masters at these techniques and use them against US, a group of people who are masters only of the moment, with an awareness of nothing more than the span of our own lifetimes and what we want, when we want it.

I don't have much faith we survive with this mindset against those concerted efforts with no viable resistance. They have won or soon will and the republic is dead. Then we get a taste of karma and reality and the consequences of stupidly ignoring history, like the spoiled prodigal children we are.

Beam me out, Scottie. Resistance is futile. We have embraced the decline and I don't want to embrace the destination.

[Mr Rogers]

“If you love anchor babies, thank the decision of Wong Kim Ark.”

Actually, you would have to thank the Founders who used a legal phrase that would permit such a thing to happen. WKA didn’t make up a meaning, but discussed the meaning as the Founders understood it.

[Mr Rogers]

What is “the grandfather clause problem”?

[MamaTexan]

The WKA decision spent half of the decision discussing natural born subject/citizen

No, it was mentioned a scant six times. Four in the decision and twice in the dissent.

What you posted is the Appellants Brief, not the determination of the court.

[MamaTexan]

you would have to thank the Founders who used a legal phrase that would permit such a thing to happen.

Show me.

[Political Junkie Too]

If we agree that illegal aliens cannot confer citizenship on children born here, then we have a case where it's not enough to just be born here for someone to be a natural born citizen.

For legal alien status that confers citizenship to children, is it only permanent resident alien status or does even temporary student visas count?

I would think (hope?) that someone with a delcared temporary status cannot confer citizenship on their children, whereas someone with a declared permanent resident status could.

I read on old naturalization histories that it was required of an alien to declare their intention to become a citizen to begin the naturalization process. It would be reasonable to assume that someone here on a temporary student visa has declared their intention to not stay here, and so should not be able to confer natural born status to their children?

-PJ

[Springfield Reformer]

I was otherwised engaged and just now read your response. Very interesting anaolgy, and very helpful, I think. Property was central to the founder’s view of freedom, and the complexities of title under the common law were second nature to them. It would be an interesting framework from which to reexamine the body of evidence. Good thought. Thanks.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

But Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and most likely has a Canadian birth certificate. Do you mean to tell me that a man born in Canada that has a Canadian birth certificate is a Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen eligible to run for the presidency?

[Mr Rogers]

I KNOW I posted the Appellant’s brief. It sheds light on what the government want the court to decide.

And NBS/NBC was mentioned far more than 6 times in the WKA decision. It covered half of the decision, and for reason - because it was something the government had argued against.

[Mr Rogers]

“Show me.”

The legal term was “natural born citizen”, and that definition includes anyone born in the country of parents here in amity with the government.

[Mr Rogers]

I don’t know on Cruz. If both his parents had been US citizens, then I’d say yes, he meets the requirement for NBC. But with just one parent, I don’t know. I can think of arguments on both sides.