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 ...
Actually, yes it does.
Would you care to explain how a court can supposedly say someone of Chinese decent is a natural-born citizen when:
1] A year after final Constitutional Ratification, the Founders passed the Naturalization Act. Why, IF such a positive law authority existed, did they Founders NOT proclaim themselves to *natural born citizens*?
2] The next Naturalization Act, concerning aliens, was passed in 1795, repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, thus closing the window for anyone to claim being a *natural born citizen* UNDER that Act. So how did the Wong Court rationalize using an Act that had been repealed?
3]The Ark court attempted to us the 14th Amendment in their rationalizations, but the words on the floor of the House specifically said foreigners and aliens were NOT included in the 14th Amendment, as shown here. So how can the Ark court rationalize him being a *natural born citizen* via the 14th Amendment when the authors OF the 14th Amendment said it did not include foreigners or aliens?
They just weren’t that afraid.
Or in even simpler terms, you're wrong.
Now I wonder whose idea it was to prohibit foreign influence in the Executive branch? Don't tell me.... I'm sure the name will come to me eventually...
Anyways, here's a few quotes.
George Washington:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
Alexander Hamilton:
Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.
Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793
John Adams:
Our form of government, inestimable as it is, exposes us, more than any other, to the insidious intrigues and pestilent influence of foreign nations. Nothing but our inflexible neutrality can preserve us.
-John Adams(Letter in the Boston Patriot,1809)
John Jay, Federalist Number 3:
At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as from dangers of the like kind arising from domestic causes.
No, they weren't worried about Foreign influence in our Government at all.
Dershowitz, who would like to repeal the Second Amendment. Sterling source you have there. Great lover of the Constitution.
I’m still not seeing the racism per se. Then again I didn’t see George Allen as being a racist for using the term macaca. He had lived his entire life as a non-racist, & it seemed outrageous to destroy his career over what could be seen as an innocuous throwaway term.
From my POV, here’s the gist of the comments in question. Obama was, apart from arguing vociferously for infanticide, a no acct IL senator. Barely had he made it into the US Senate before he was touted as POTUS material. That wasn’t true, but nobody wanted to hear it at the time. Indeed, if you said it, you’d probably be called a racist.
Well if Obama wasn’t POTUS material shortly after making it into the US Senate, our guys probably aren’t either. (Or perhaps they have more accomplishments behind them than Obama did. I’m really not that familiar w their entire life records.)
At any rate, as far as the problematic post goes, it appears to simply treat the Obama situation in an evenhanded way. Had O not been of color, he would not have been seriously put forth as POTUS material w no real accomplishments behind him. If that is true for him, would it not be true of others in similar situations?
Actually, I don't have to explain it. The fact is that they did find him a natural-born citizen. (Or else you think they wasted all that time and paper examining the background and meaning of "natural-born citizen," only to decide he was a citizen on some other grounds altogether.) Even if I think they're wrong, them's the facts.
but the words on the floor of the House specifically said foreigners and aliens were NOT included in the 14th Amendment, as shown here. So how can the Ark court rationalize him being a *natural born citizen* via the 14th Amendment when the authors OF the 14th Amendment said it did not include foreigners or aliens?
Because they agreed with Justice Scalia that "The use of legislative history is illegitimate and ill advised in the interpretation of any statute"?
If they didn't find WKA to be a natural born citizen, how do you explain the dissenters' concern that they had just said he could be president?
What can I tell you? In rulings and concurrences both Justices Scalia and Thomas have cited previous Supreme Court rulings stating that there are only two classes of citizenship. (See Miller v Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 1998)
Without Scalia and Thomas there aren’t four votes under The Rule of Four to grant Certiorari to an Obama eligibility challenge and there aren’t five votes to prevail on a holding.
I’m sure that you are aware that those two guys are real sticklers for “stare decisis.”
For example:
“This [the citizenship clause] section of the fourteenth amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only, birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”—U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
Might the Supreme Court establish a new precedent? They might. Have they established a new precedent in the twenty Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them in conference thus far? Nope.
Sorry, Jeff, but even Rawle, on a more thorough reading, doesn't support your position.
Key points...at the time the Constitution was adopted and established as to us.
His whole spiel was about grandfathering in people, including himself apparently, at the time the Constitution was adopted!
Good try, but that dog don't hunt!
If what YOU claim is so obvious, why don't you have any political or legal support, on your side of the issue?
Birthers are like John Birchers, some are well meaning, but they do great harm to the conservative cause.
For one thing, Birthers support Judicial Supremacy, and Conservatives do NOT. Bithers want to give the Courts even more power than what they are granted under the Constitution.
CONGRESS is the final authority on the eligibility of anyone to be President.
...how do you explain the dissenters' concern that they had just said he could be president?
Where exactly do you read that he could be President?
Why should we accept Rawle’s view as the standard.
He had it right...on a more thorough reading!
Snippets leave out context.
How can you so badly mangle and misinterpret, as well as misrepresent, what he said and live with yourself?
Had you never even bothered to read the whole paragraph?
All:
Many FReepers will remember this brave 2011 article by Charles Rice who at least points to Minor v Happersett.
Who says he "suggests no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not."
I suspect if he has followed the issue, that he is embarrassed he ever wrote that article.
Both of these claims are just silly. "Anchor babies" after the Revolutionary War? Not in any modern sense.
They didn't have people coming to the United States to have "anchor babies." They did have an issue with the division of Americans into US citizens and English subjects. This is the natural result of any successful war for Independence.
And they couldn't have foreseen modern "anchor babies," so your charge of stupidity against the Founders is just silly.
The 14th, in particular has been the cause of much Mischief and destruction to American society.
So are you proposing that we repeal the 14th Amendment??
Yeah, let's repeal the Amendment whose purpose was to make sure everyone understood "them n*****s were citizens, too."
Conversing with you just gets more and more surreal.
Whether their citizenship was "honorary" or not, they were dual citizens with France.
While serving as President.
And yes, dual citizenship existed, and was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1795.
Woah there sparky. I see the pc police are here and flashing their race-card badges and their no sense of humor demeanors.
I think he’s talking to me too and apparently and somebody was offended.
Los Amigos - My god, that’s so racist
Cubanos - My lord, that’s so racist
Ricky Ricardos - Ok that’s just funny
LUCY YOU GOT SOME SPLAININ TO DOOOO!!!
For a guy that has this on his home page you’re quick to see what you want to see.
Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society: The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group.
SNIP
Auster’s First Law of Majority/Minority Relations in Liberal Society: The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior. The First Law and its corollary are intrinsic to liberalism. Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.
They are certainly free to vote for whomever they like.
“Try this one:
If what YOU claim is so obvious, why don’t you have any political or legal support, on your side of the issue?”
How many times am I going to have to answer this question? & if you are such a gung ho conservative, why can’t you answer it yourself?
Once more w feeling.
We are up against 40-50 yrs of heavy duty nonstop liberal indoctrination. The foundation of modern liberalism is that all discrimination is bad/wrong/evil. In fact, discrimination is the ONLY wrong/bad/evil in the world today. [This is why/how they are able to demonize Christians so effectively. When we define, for instance, homosexual behavior as wrong, we are discriminating against gay people. Therefore we are evil. Rinse & repeat until the young skulls full of mush get the message.]
The Framers’ original intent discriminates. It discriminates against the children—the innocent little children, quelle horreur!—of foreigners.
Now according to modern liberalism, you don’t get any more evil than that. Discriminating against both children and foreigners?!?! That is Hitler territory!
The one thing the modern brainwashed product of public school knows is that such a racist, discriminating interpretation of NBC has GOT to be wrong. They KNOW this, you understand, because they know what evil is, and they recognize it when they see/hear it.
So of course they are going to reject this vile, evil definition of NBC. They reject it a priori. No amount of argumentation will change their mind. They *know* evil—and a restrictive, discriminating clause designed to keep innocent children [after they grow up] out of the WH is evil.
Thank 40 to 50 yrs of liberal indoctrination for the stupidity of the modern public school product. These people once had potential, but now cannot reason their way out of a brown paper bag. The real shame is that some older conservatives who should know better have jumped on the bandwagon. For them there truly is no hope.
The point is not just Dershowitz, of course. There is broad agreement on all sides of the political spectrum, among virtually all real legal authorities, on the meaning of the term.
And especially on the part of real legal authorities who’ve actually considered the matter in any depth.
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.