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 ...
Your complaint about ad-hom "attacks" is itself an ad hom. Rejected.
I asked you a question. If you don't like Original Intent, then what do you like better?
People making our decisions for us from Zurich? International lotus-eaters in the White House? I'm talking about your motives here.
“At some point I intend to post those, along with the information as to WHY they are fallacious and/ or extremely weak.”
If you spent one one-hundredth the time researching the ways Obama is permanently ruining the country—precisely because he has foreign allegiances, and publically pledged his loyalty to them above his loyalty to the USA [the only thing he pledged the USA was to “disavow white middle-classness” - & he’s done a bang up job of that, hasn’t he?]—your posting tone/focus might change dramatically.
Unless of course you actually like/enjoy being governed by a self-avowed foreigner? [Hint: Obama publically named his “true homeland”, & it wasn’t the USA.]
The courts have consistently disagreed with that position.
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Everything I’ve presented has to do with the original intent of the Framers, and of the people who actually ratified the Constitution.
If I wasn’t committed to original intent, I would probably be claiming it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
If I didn't have to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States from those who are utterly determined to misrepresent them, then I would certainly have more time to research how Obama is ruining the country.
Oh, so the original intent was to install persons w foreign allegiances in the WH, the better to destroy the Republic from w’in.
Got it.
[You really think the Framers were idiots, don’t you?]
B/c ‘winning’ the argument on FR is so All Important, after all. No damage the self-proclaimed foreigner does to the Republic, no matter how devastating or irreparable, trumps winning that argument, does it?
You. Are. Obsessed.
The Fourteenth Amendment only addresses the class of “citizens” called “citizens of the United States.” The amendment treats “citizens” who become so under the amendment by either birth or naturalization in the United States as “citizens of the United States.” There is no mention in the amendment of a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no mention of a “natural born Citizen” in the amendment like there is mention in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, you simply cannot say that the amendment defines a “natural born Citizen,” which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 confirms is a separate and distinct class.
Huh?
What you just posted does mean much at all.
All Red Barns are Red.
All Red Barns are Barns.
Not every Barn is Red.
Just because something is red, does not mean it is a barn.
Your posts do not address birth right citizenship to those born outside US Territory at all, what you just posted is true but narrow, and what you posted does not exclude other routes to birth right or NATURAL BORN citizenship.
It is NOT the considered opinion of "every genuine early American legal authority and source close to the Founders and Framers ". That you keep characterising it as such is a consequence of Your habit of lying about it. You ignore Marshall, you ignore Washington, you ignore Monroe, you ignore David Ramsey, you simply ignore anyone who doesn't parrot back that stupid British crap.
Heh. Next time you have a serious medical condition, I have a group of juju doctors you can go to. They don't have any medical training, but they've got some cool medical theories, and make extensive use of psychedelics. So the treatment is very enjoyable.
In the legal system, it is the jujus who run things. Abortion? 14th amendment. Prayer in Schools? 14th Amendment. Wickard v Fillburn? 14th Amendment. Anchor babies? 14th amendment. Birth Tourism? 14th amendment.
That you even compare the legal industry with the medical is a demonstration of how ridiculous you are.
A rule for who is and is not a citizen is hardly the "chains of feudalism."
If the rule says *I* OWN anyone born on my land, then yes it is.
Do you sell cars in your day job?
No, I design and repair complex electronic control systems. What do YOU do?
Anybody can look up my points and see that they are true.
They can look up and see you endlessly proclaiming them to be true, which is a very different thing. But actually true? No, they can't see that because they aren't. If they were so obviously true, why do you need to lie about them? Why do you have to distort John Bingham's position to support your argument?
Anybody can look up my exposes of your numerous fallacious claims and see that they are, in fact, fallacious.
Not anybody, you have to be a brain dead/brain washed retard. Only the gullible believe the founders were foolish enough to invent "anchor babies."
So the more you post, the more you expose yourself as someone who is determinedly pushing attacking quack theories.
There, fixed it for ya.
It should be obvious even to you by now that these theories and claims will never go anywhere. Not only will no court in the land ever rule in favor of these false claims, no major conservative Constitutional body (such as National Review, Heritage Foundation, etc.) will ever support them.
Such was once said about slavery, and thank God those fools were WRONG. (just like you.)
And even in the tiny corner in which you've been able to repeat the false claims, you are thoroughly embattled. There are a few people who still believe them, but not anybody who actually does the research and reading and looks at the evidence of history and law with a cool head.
Embattled? I hardly see any opposition anywhere. You are probably the best your side has to offer, but most of your supporters are people like Kansas58 or douginthearmy. You deserve them.
No, what we are is shouted down in the mainstream of the Press and the legal system. The Press hates any challenge to their boyfriend, and the legal system hates any challenge to their "precedents."
Neither is proof that they are correct, but it is enough to convince them to believe with blind faith and to attack or dismiss those who don't.
Posting ridiculous blather about barns does not constitute a rebuttal.
Please provide a third party outside source as substantiation for your assertion that 'the 14th Amendment changed things'.
You aren't. Many of us can see it too.
There are only two classes of Citizenship.
Natural Born.
Naturalized.
If you are naturalized you can not be President. That is ALL it means.
Natural Born means Citizen from the moment of Birth and nothing else.
WHEW! That's a relief. LOL!
I did not make such a claim. Once again Jeff is wrong And lying about it.
But it shows that DL is so committed to his fallacious Constitutional claims, hey, what's one or two more fallacies?
Sure, why not. After all, if you've got your hundreds of fallacies, what are a couple from me? (Though I haven't yet put one forth. )
In for a penny, in for a pound. As the English say.
Never let it be said that Jeff Winston will ever stop saying what the English say.
That is true Obsession.
Missed my point by a country mile. Did you do it on purpose, or does this really represent your best effort?
Because calling people idiots is such a sophisticated debate tactic. Wins every time. /s
I have no argument with the quotes you posted, you simply do not know how to read or interpret those quotes.
Birthers do not understand how to read, it is that simple.
To say that someone is a Natural Born Citizen due to their parents both being citizens and due to the child being born on US soil does NOT mean that ALL those facts must always be present to obtain birth right citizenship.
You may have two US Parents and be born on foreign soil and still be a Natural Born Citizen. (depending on the laws on the books at the time of birth.)
You may be born in the United States of non-citizen parents and still have birth right citizenship.
A judge might well make note of ALL the facts involved, WITHOUT making a claim that all those facts would be required in another case, for birth-right citizenship.
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.