Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Mrs Holdah is a true constitutional scholar. There are many articles on her website. You can spend hours reading them. It’s well worth the time.
Yes, Jeff, as far as you are concerned, if the shadow of an American has ever fallen across someone, they are a "natural citizen." Your theory allows "Birth Tourism" (mostly Chinese mothers flying to the United States to have their children so the children can get "American" citizenship.) and "Anchor Babies."
That your theory is stark raving insanity doesn't faze you. It's like Abortion and Gay marriage. It can have utterly ridiculous legal arguments behind it, but you'll support it because some judge says so.
There is a fairly large contingent of mythspinners here, who claim it takes birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Some of them post literally dozens of pages of fallacious arguments. I am in process of trying, slowly, to document these. I've got 39 so far, and have no doubt that I'm nowhere near done.
No Jeff, it is you who keep trying to maintain the fiction that Anchor babies and Birth tourism is a legitimate application of our law, and this DESPITE all the evidence which has been presented to you to make you aware that this was NOT the intention of the 14th amendment.
I'm beginning to think it would save a lot of time by simply calling you a liar every time I see you. You see people, Jeff knowingly and INTENTIONALLY Lied about what John Bingham said regarding Aliens having children in this country. Lying doesn't bother Jeff at all. He does it routinely.
Early legal authorities and other writers are virtually unanimous in saying that being a "natural born citizen" or eligible to the Presidency meant or required being "born on US soil" or "born a citizen."
Another Lie by Jeff. Aristotle contradicts you. Dr. David Ramsey Contradicts you, James Monroe Contradicts You, Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736 contradicts you. Publius (Likely James Madison) Contradicts you. Justice Washington and Justice Marshall contradicts you. A whole host of legal authorities contradict you, including John Bingham, father of the 14th amendment, even HE contradicts you, but you lie about him. H*ll, you lie about ALL OF THEM.
Ramsay was running a sore-loser campaign to try and disqualify one of the guys who beat him for a seat in the US House of Representatives. That was the obvious purpose of his little "treatise on citizenship." And he was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison. So Ramsay's opinion was officially judged by one of our most prominent Founding Fathers as being absolutely worthless.
Jeff is just lying again. Not going to detail it. He does it so often that it is simply too much trouble to address all his efforts to lie and mislead.
Against this there are literally dozens of more competent voices, including a few that are abundantly clear, like that of William Rawle, early American legal expert who met regularly with Washington and Franklin to discuss politics and law, and who was in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention:
Yeah, Rawle Again. The British Loyalist who was on the OTHER SIDE during the War, and who was trained in BRITISH law, not the unique aspects of American law which is a separation from British Servitude. (Chained to the land by Feudal law.)
Jeff is just lying again.
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
And here he is quoting British Loyalist Rawle, citing British Law, and applying it to America. I expect Rawle is the reason why Attorney-General Black had this to say on July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover.
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”
Perhaps - but original intent of NBC has not been fouled through the years by numerous prior travesties. If we fail to try, we are only trying to fail.
Birthers are trying to violate the Constitution by twisting it to mean what they want.
Yes, Stephen, natural born citizen was plainly understood even before the founding of our nation. It was probably when the communists really got deeply embedded in our system that they started to muddy the waters about the presidential requirements, so one of “their” people could be installed.
With Obama, they had to fully throw a fast wrench in the natural born citizen discussion—not that they allowed any discussion.
We’ve been had by a nearly bloodless, communist coup.
Yep. When each word of that Constitution was so carefully thought out, sweated over...
Ok, I was wondering if you could explain, what your reply has to do with what I replied.
Please clarify, thanks.
Excuse me?
Do you think ANYONE alive, prior to the Civil War, did NOT have a political view on slavery that might have biased their views on citizenship?
Your point is absurd.
They all breathed the same air, lived in the same world, faced the same questions.
If you believe this, let me ask you one question. Can a natural born citizen have his citizenship stripped away for failing to live inside the United States?
Out of all possible candidates, with the exception of Sarah Palin, he is the real deal.
I tend to agree. If the other side refuses to play by the rules, I don't see why we should bother with the rules either. This has become a dirty war. Any means to win is now fair in my opinion.
But I will say this. I don't believe Ted Cruz qualifies under the 1787 meaning of "natural born citizen" and if the supreme court decides otherwise it will have to reverse itself on a previous case.
At this point, I don't think we need to worry about whether Constitutional law gets enforced or not. It won't. Therefore we might as well play by the new dirty rules. It's not like we are going to have a choice or anything.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I've studied this issue quite a lot, and there are plenty of books which say that only birth inside our borders is all it takes. The Damage that Rawle and other British Lawyers did has been reflected by subsequent books.
Are you still going to keep repeating your lie that NO AUTHORITY SUPPORTS THIS NOTION!!!!!!
This is an absolute lie. He is only unclear when *YOU* quote him. You leave out the parts you don't like. When you see his FULL QUOTES, he is not ambiguous or unclear at all. He says citizenship is reserved only for those who are born here to parents with no foreign allegiance.
There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about his statement. YOU LOSE!
Those which are not taken out of context, are either truncated, from bad authority, or simply ignorant people repeating previous bad authority.
I think Rawle started this whole mess, and it is his misdirection that has caused serious damage to the law ever since.
Appeals to original intent concerning NBC will be as successful as appeals to original intent concerning the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause.
And this has been demonstrated as true countless times. We are living in a Republic which is transitioning back to a monarchy.
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.