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 ...
Does the FACT that Obama cannot provide a real birth certificate trouble you at all?
(and it IS a fact that he has twice presented false birth certificates)
Still no substantiation.
Sorry. I'm not 'wrong' just because some keyboard cowboy says I am.
You left out the most important words in the citizenship clause: “ALL PERSONS...” The citizenship clause placed every American citizen in one of two classifications: born citizens or naturalized citizens.
No judge and no court agrees with your theory. There is a body of case law that equates “Citizen of the United States at Birth” and “Natural Born Citizen” as synonymous terms.
For example, the US Supreme Court ruling in Schneider v. Rusk from 1964: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.” The Court equated “native born” with natural born.
Well guess what? NOBODY with any legal authority agrees with you.
Not a single immigration attorney.
Not a single member of Congress, which DOES have the power to interpret and enforce these matters, under the Constitution you claim to respect.
Not a single Governor.
Not a single State AG.
Not a single State Election Officer.
Not a single judge.
And YES legal opinions, authority and popular support DO matter. The framers SPECIFICALLY gave Congress the power to declare the winner of a Presidential election, upon the tally of the Electoral College.
You ask for “proof” of something that was rarely doubted, and therefore rarely discussed or documented.
The Founders thought “Natural Born Citizen” meant Citizen by birth right, Citizen from the moment of birth.
NOTHING ELSE.
And of course, the rules by which one can become a birth right citizen, or Natural Born Citizen, have changed due to Congressional LAW and due to the 14th Amendment.
The Founders excluded Naturalized Citizens from being President.
I am stating that Cruz and Rubio are Natural Born Citizens and I have no problem stating that those who disagree are ignorant of the law on these matters -— worse than ignorant, they are pridefully arrogant in their false beliefs.
“Does the FACT that Obama cannot provide a real birth certificate trouble you at all?”
Are you making a funny? You’re addressing this comment to a person who doesn’t care diddly squat about Obama’s bona fide’s. Obama said, in so many words, he was more loyal to his “true homeland” than to the USA. I.e.: he confirmed himself that his foreign allegiances trump his American allegiances. According to the side you are addressing, he is therefore EXACTLY the guy the Framers wanted in the WH.
& you expect them to care about fake BCs? When pigs not only fly, but perform Blue Angels acrobatic stunts, these people still will not care. That is a fact.
The way you argue proves that you do not have a logical mind.
You state what you want.
You state what you do not want.
Then you try to bend the language and the law to support what you have already decided that you want.
When you can actually reframe my point in accurate terms, I will be extremely interested in your response. If, however, you continue to tilt at windmills/devise strawmen, you merely weaken your credibility w’out coming near the actual issue.
No, it came from the need to consolidate James I on the English Throne, so Lord Coke conjured the whole thing up. On the other hand, the bible has a habit of listing all these "begats" to demonstrate who is a natural child of Israel. For some reason they don't think Israeli's were Egyptians just because they were born there.
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;Yeah, I didn't see a mention of where ANY of them were born. Funny how they left that out completely. Apparently Jeff is lying again.
2 male and female created he them; Mt. 19.4 · Mk.
10.6 and blessed them, Gen. 1.27, 28 and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 and the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 ¶ And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 and Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 ¶ And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Ca-i'nan:
10 and Enos lived after he begat Ca-i'nan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 and all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 ¶ And Ca-i'nan lived seventy years, and begat Mahal'aleel:
13 and Ca-i'nan lived after he begat Mahal'aleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 and all the days of Ca-i'nan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 ¶ And Mahal'aleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16 and Mahal'aleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 and all the days of Mahal'aleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18 ¶ And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19 and Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20 and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 ¶ And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methu'selah:
22 and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methu'selah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 and Enoch Heb. 11.5 walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25 ¶ And Methu'selah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
26 and Methu'selah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 and all the days of Methu'selah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 ¶ And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 and he called his name Noah, 6 saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31 and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 ¶ And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Romans 13:1: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
And here is how you misdirect. You quote this bit of text from the bible in support of your assertion that people born on soil are "natural born subjects", but your quote does not support that contention at all. You just claim it does, and then pretend that it does.
By the historical English understanding of natural (and divine) law (see Coke in Calvin's Case, 1607), all persons born within a realm were naturally members of that realm. This was the law of nature and of nature's God.
Only if you believe in the Divine right of Kings... to OWN people, that is.) Judaism is by descent, not by location of birth. But I don't think you even know as much about the case as you could learn from Wikipedia. Here's an entry.
Decision
Under the feudal system, the allegiance owed to a king by his subjects—connected as it was to the holding of interests in land—ruled out the possibility of any given individual holding land in two different kingdoms. Robert Calvin, born in Scotland around 1606, inherited estates in England, but his rights thereto were challenged on the grounds that, as a Scot, he could not legally own English land.[4] The Court of King's Bench ruled in Calvin's favour, finding that he was not an alien and did have the right to hold land in England.[1]
They needed to Unify the crowns of England and Scotland to create the United Kingdom (Because they simply couldn't conquer Scotland, no doubt thanks to my stubborn ancestor, William Wallace, et al. Again, from Wikipedia:
The judges of the court cited existing statutes—including particularly a 1351 statute, De Natis Ultra Mare, which granted the benefits of subject status to foreign-born children of the king's subjects—as supporting the concept that allegiance was tied to the person of the king, rather than to the kingdom itself or to its laws.[8]
Although some have tried very hard to obfuscate the issue, it isn't really rocket science.
Nope, it's good old Monarchical and Feudal Law. (like you would have any clue about Rocket Science.) Some idiots think it ought to be American Law, but it isn't really. Glad you admitted that you are of the some that "have tried very hard to obfuscate the issue".
Kansas58 states:
“The Founders thought “Natural Born Citizen” meant Citizen by birth right, Citizen from the moment of birth.
NOTHING ELSE.
And of course, the rules by which one can become a birth right citizen, or Natural Born Citizen, have changed due to Congressional LAW and due to the 14th Amendment.”
Wrong. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t.
See post 188. If you are such a master logician, it should be child’s play for you to rephrase my actual point. If, however, you continue to display an inability to grasp simple English, you do your cause no good.
Credibility?
Does a SINGLE conservative leader agree with you?
Does a SINGLE conservative politician agree with you?
Does a SINGLE legal scholar agree with you?
NO!
You do not get to tell the reasonable and smart people how to argue.
We, instead, get to tell you that you don’t understand what you are talking about.
YOU carry the burden of proof, and you have not met that burden.
You have not even raised much doubt on the matter.
Natural Born means NOT Naturalized, and nothing else.
And as a genuine fly-weight, intellectually speaking, you ought to know. At least you are good for comic relief. Say something else!
You wouldn’t know if anyone agrees w me b’c you are unable to grasp the original point. You are arguing w someone else, but definitely not me. If/when you want to argue w me, demonstrate that you at least comprehend my central point. So far, you haven’t come close.
Yo Birther... some Hawaiian Dr dude said “he born here”!
Congress could pass a law declaring you "intelligent enough to pour water out of a boot if the instructions are written on the heel", but it would still be untrue.
That all well and good, but you refer to those of us (and I am including myself) that believe he released a fraudulant BC to the public as “birthers” - a derogatory term
I am a computer software engineer who has WRITTEN image processing software. I knew within 5 seconds of looking at it, that is was a fake.
Which was a pretty disconcerting experience. I looked at it, looked at it again, looked at it some more and thought “Holy crab- this thing is a fake...” and by then the comments about layers were already starting to come out.
I must have misspoke. Profuse apologies. I am myself a birther. Have been from the beginning. & yes, the doc Obama released was a computer generated cut & paste job. I have never claimed otherwise.
Well, I found this guy with a quick search.
Democratic Constituent Outreach Field Director at Michigan House of Representatives
Greater Grand Rapids, Michigan Area Political Organization
No doubt Jeff will tell us it isn't him, but I wouldn't trust him. After all, if he'll lie about Bingham, he'll lie about other things too.
:)
Ha! The pot calls the kettle, Black!
And I’m not talking about the 40 or so different fallacious and/or extremely-weak arguments that I’ve already documented Made up.
Fixed it for ya.
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.