Posted on 03/11/2013 9:54:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the past few days, there has been renewed buzz on the Internet about the presidential eligibility of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz has only been in the Senate for about 60 days and does not appear to be behind any of the talk. But he has certainly been in the news in recent days, and in response to a request for comment, his spokesman, Sean Rushton, sent me this note:
Sen. Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born in Calgary to an American-born mother. He is focused entirely on his new role in the Senate, and on working every day to represent Texas and defend conservative principles in the Senate.
Any talk about Cruz follows years of discussion about birthplace and presidential eligibility involving President Obama, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Marco Rubio. The bottom line in the case of Cruz, who was born in Canada in 1970, is that his father was an immigrant from Cuba and not a U.S. citizen at the time of young Cruz’s birth, but his mother was born and raised in the United States. The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth. Although the drafters of the Constitution did not define what they meant when they required an American president to be a “natural born citizen,” it is generally thought that “citizen by birth” is the best modern-day equivalent. On that basis, Cruz appears entirely eligible — if he ever chooses to pursue the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I’m not sure Cruz’s father was a citizen of any country at the time of his birth. He may have been stateless.
IIRC Castro stripped the citizenship of Cubans that left Cuba.
Whatever he was the father of Cruz wasnt an American citizen..
Cruz is not an NBC
He is not eligible to be POTUS..
Any more than Churchill, Rubio, Bobby Jindal are eligible..
I would be very cautious about changing the Constitution on this...
the child of illegal aliens could be POTUS if there is a change...
This new learning amazes me, Tennessee Nana.
Laws change. Women’s right to be full citizens and vote used to not be recognized. Similarly their children were previously deemed to be more the children of their father than of their mother for citizenship purposes.
Winston Churchill was not a U.S. citizen at birth.
Senator Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth.
Why should they [framers of the U.S.Constitution, Madison et al.] need to clariy something they all knew?
The Constitution is not a dictionary.
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote.
The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.
SCOTUS rejected Minor’s argument that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution, and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
Apparently the divorce court did, or there wouldn’t be a divorce on record.
If Zippo was born in the US, which is doubtful probably Canada, he was born both citizen of US and Brit subject.
By the laws at the time he would probably be considered a Brit first and American second.
Who’s changing the Constitution?
Simply go by facts to reach a conclusion.
If there is no citizenship to pass to the child, it is irrelevant where the parent was born.
If a country does not grant a child citizenship simply by being born in the country, then that too is irrelevant.
NBC means being born with loyalties to only one country, it doesn’t need to be redefined by either side.
0bama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship.
It is not in dicta. It is part of the Holding.
I do believe he is eligible to be be President of the Republic of Texas (and I will Vote for him)
TT
So you refuse to acknowledge that dicta expresses what at least one scotus judge thought regarding
nbc? Amazing mental gyration that!
When Texas becomes a Republic, separate from Obamaland, I will be moving there and applying for citizenship. Please, make it so!
Among them would be Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Joseph Story. But no doubt you are more knowledgeable on these things than they were.
This is a clarification to my last post to you:
In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum.
“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioner’s claim that it was simply a dictum.”
The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.
************************************************************************
The above is from Leo Donofrio’s online site.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
My daughter was born in Canada and because I am an American citizen, she automatically is an American citizen, she has dual citizenship.
“Well, if Cruz is a natural born citizen then even if Obama was born in Kenya he would be eligible to be POTUS because his mother was born in the US.”
The US residency requirement for the one married US citizen parent that applied to Barry’s mom was five years which she failed, and Barry wouldn’t be a US citizen at birth...but only if she was legally married...which she was not due to bigamy, IMO.
If Stanley Ann gave birth in Kenya and was NOT legally married Barry would have been a US citizen at birth because under international law recognized by the US the nationality of a single mother is passed as a unitary citizenship to the child, not the nationality of the sperm donor.
However a recent 9th Circus decision (Marguet v. Pillado) in dicta declared any biological connection to a US citizen would make a foreign born child NBC. This decision was handed down in CA just before Judge Carter was about to rule on possible discovery of Barry’s HI BC and I believe that the language was inserted in the ruling explicitly to protect Barry if discovery had found he was Kenyan born.
RE: A person born with loyalty to more than one country is already in question as to which country they are most loyal to.
_________________
One does not acquire “loyalty” to a country simply by virtue of one’s birth ( I am sure the framers understand that too ).
I know of many people who were not born in the USA and who, by virtue of their birth in another country are dual citizens whether they like it or not.
That does not mean that their loyalty to the United States is in question. That also does not mean that that they are now split in their loyalty to the USA and whichever country they were born in.
The American Taliban John Walker Lindh was a natural born citizen. This means nothing.
On the other hand, I know of several folks who were born overseas who have fought for this country and are loyal to her.
I am sure the framers can appreciate that as well.
One does not control the circumstances of one’s birth. However, one can control which country one will love. And that is the most important thing.
If Ted Cruz RELINQUISHES his Canadian citizenship, that issue becomes moot. The issue then becomes this — is the citizenship by birth by virtue of his mother being American qualifying?
if he does not, then of course, he cannot ran for president.
He is a citizen of Canada and falls under their jurisdiction when he is within their borders.
They are duty bound to protect their citizens.
It doesn’t have a thing to with “Like”.
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.