Posted on 03/11/2013 9:54:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Aw, - - - shucks. Thanks.
RE: at the very least he has a divided oath of citizenship and cannot be president if he is still Canadian
As i said before, one does not choose to one’s place of birth. If he renounces his Canadian citizenship, then the point is moot. If he does not, then yes, that becomes an issue.
The world awaits with bated breath.
From Post #117:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen. I think that is, at this point, the defacto definition.
That may be the only way to get this issue resolved. Want to watch BHO sweat bullets?
Possibly the most brilliant idea posted on FR on the topic of NBC, ever! Some one needs to get this to Ted. And failing that, don't we have a patriotic Freeper who could do this?
Yes, SeekAndFind, this has always struck me as the most obvious and simple definition of NBC. One that most people would intuitively think makes sense. That's not to say it's the right one: there are some alternative ones that have been floated here, and there is some period documentation to support them.
The Supreme Court operates under The Rule of Four. It takes four votes to accept an appeal for a hearing before the full Court. That means Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas could agree to hear an Obama eligibility appeal. Those are the four who opposed Obamacare.
“He is NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN unless he is a child of parentS that were under the jurisdiction of the USA when he was born”
The Constitution doesn’t say that.
And James Madison, who knew a thing about the Constitution, said essentially the opposite: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
I wasn’t trying to prove she is eligible, I was proving that because I’m a citizen she is automatically a citizen of USA.
What does that have to do with a given candidate's eligibility to run for the US Presidency?
RE: d, this has always struck me as the most obvious and simple definition of NBC. One that most people would intuitively think makes sense.
What we really need is a constitutional amendment to :
1) CLEARLY DEFINE what natural born means so as to make this debate moot.
2) Make citizenship by birth MORE STRINGENT. One amendment I’d like to see it to DENY babies born on US soil whose parents are illegal automatic citizenship.
RE: James Madison, who knew a thing about the Constitution, said essentially the opposite: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
_______________________________
This is interesting. Could you refer us to what historical document the above quote exists? Is it in the Federalist Papers?
If the above quote is REAL ( and not made up as in Tocqueville’s so-called “America is great because America is good” essay ), then that would be an insight into the framer’s original intent.
NEVER MIND, I found it myself here (the author of the article I cite is Bernard Goldberg, generally known to be quite careful in his own citations ):
TITLE OF THE ARTICLE: Who Is A “Natural Born Citizen”?
EXCERPT:
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/who-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
So what did the Founders have in mind when they used that term they didn’t bother to define? Well, after the Constitution was ratified, some of the Founders opined about the meaning of the clause. Here’s what James Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution, had to say on the subject in a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
So Mr. Madison, speaking directly to the question of who is and who is not a “natural born citizen” states that here in the United States “place” – or where you were born” – trumps “parentage” – the citizenship of your mother and father.
______________________
I note however, that Madison DOES NOT IGNORE parentage, even as he considers place to be more important (if the above speech is an indication ). The words “in general” tells us this.
Jack, Andy
Yea I love that idea you had, Andy!
Thing is, how would Cruz get people together for the commirssion and have them dig into it, plus then get the SCOTUS to pay attention to it and not blow him off, like the justices have done to others (”refuse to hear”).
Gotta do it in such a way that if they don’t do anything, it brings attention to it.
Good God, too much time on your hands. I was making a point about citizenship, not eligibility.
No, Madison doesn’t discount parentage. Parents can pass citizenship to their children.
But he is quote clear that place of birth is the more important criteria. That’s all that is required.
That’s all that’s required? ... Sorry, you’ve made a logical fallacy. You cannot actually leap that far based upon the launching point you’ve chosen. Madison was not addressing the Constitutional clause, nor was he seeking to make a definitive statement regarding a final definition for Natural Born Citizen as differentiated from citizen as used for qualification of legislators. It is more instructive to look at what Bingham had to say during debate over the wording for the fourteenth amendment, if seeking the founders’ unserstanding of the Constitutional differentiation between qualification for legislator or president.
OH!
I thought we were talking about Ted Cruz's eligibility.
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.