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 ...
Yet you just said in your previous post they didn't.
True, they didn't "proclaim" him a natural-born citizen.
-----
Because they agreed with Justice Scalia that "The use of legislative history is illegitimate and ill advised in the interpretation of any statute"?
Nice try, but we weren't talking about 'statutes', but Constitutional Amendments.
-----
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?
There are 7 times the word 'president' is used in the dissent.
there is such a wide difference between the power conferred on the president of the United States
as there is between the authority and sovereignty of the queen of England and the power of the American president
In 1859, Atty. Gen. Black thus advised the president
[concerning constitutional eligibility] shall be eligible to the office of president
[concerning the Founding] who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the constitution are eligible to the office of president.
I insist that it cannot be maintained that this government is unable, through the action of the president, concurred in by the senate,
I am of opinion that the president and senate by treaty
Not one has anything to do with them saying Ark 'could be president'. Please point out and quote the exact part that says such a thing.
Yes, I've read Rawle, in context. And the context is a general exposition of the entire Constitution, for the entire populace of the United States.
To claim that when he said "us," he was referring to "grandfathering" people in who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is just downright silly. Especially when he speaks expressly of those who are BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
Thanks for posting. It's a great illustration that there's simply nothing that you people won't try to twist.
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.
How pathetic a reply is that!
Once again, for your edification...
Key points...at the time the Constitution was adopted and established as to us.
I note with great relish that you failed to make any note whatsoever of that sticky point in your rejoinder and you quote the middle of the paragraph once again.
ROTFLOLAPIMP
BTW...major psyops projection FAIL!
(the Force is weak in this one)
Look in the mirror for the twisting being done!
So is it your contention that Rawle was NOT speaking solely about only those living "at the time the Constitution was adopted?
Rush Limbaugh
Hannity
Mark Levin
Every elected Republican in the country
Every judge
Every immigration attorney
Landmark Legal Foundation
American Center for Law and Justice
Jay Sekulow
EVERY conservative legal foundation there is out there
EVERY legal scholar
and EVERY historian in the country?
You are profoundly arrogant.
Nobody is on your side because:
YOUR SIDE IS RIDICULOUS!
Last I spoke with him, he didn’t plan to write anymore but he had so many requests to put back up previous posts because links were broken all over where we cited him that he said he’d do so.
The absence of logic in your post is staggering.
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-scrubbing-of-america-how-professor-lawrence-solum-disgraced-himself-to-protect-obamas-eligibility/
THE SCRUBBING OF AMERICA: How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility.
In September of 2008, the Michigan Law Review published an article by Lawrence Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, entitled, “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause”. The article focused upon the issue of whether John McCain was eligible to be President despite his birth in Panama. The article did not even mention Barack Obama. The direct citation is Michigan Law Review: First Impressions Vol. 107:22 2008.
The opening paragraph of Solum’s article states:
“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen.’” (Emphasis added.)
According to this reference, there is general agreement that the core meaning of the natural born citizen clause = born in the US to parents who are citizens. According to Solum back in September 08, anyone who doesn’t fit that description, like McCain, falls into a “twilight zone” of eligibility. This interesting choice of words mimics the US Supreme Court’s “doubts” expressed in Minor v. Happersett:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (Emphasis added.)
Solum’s definition of the core meaning of natural born citizen seems to be taken directly from the SCOTUS in Minor. Solum then goes on to analyze McCain’s eligibility and concludes that there is no clear answer as to whether McCain was eligible to be President.
CUT TO… OCTOBER 27th 2008.
Solum published the original article in September 2008. But then something happened.
The issue of whether a dual citizen at birth may be considered a natural born citizen had been ignored in the run up to the election – prior to October 27, 2008 – when I brought my law suit, Donofrio v. Wells, against the New Jersey Secretary of State. Up until then, the issue of Obama’s dual citizenship was not on the radar of voters, pundits, or journalists.
By 2010, the dual citizen issue had become common knowledge. Today, four states - Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arizona – have drafted bills requiring Presidential candidates to prove they have never been dual citizens, or that both of their parents were citizens of the United States when the candidate was born. If any of those states actually pass such a law, Obama will not be eligible for inclusion on their ballots.
SOLUM SCRUBS
On April 18, 2010, Solum republished the article under the same exact title but with a vastly different second paragraph. The revised article was released online via the Social Science Research Network. The citation for the scrubbed article is Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 09-17. The second paragraph now reads:
“What is the legal significance of what we can call “the natural born citizen clause”? There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning.2 As a matter of inclusion, it is beyond dispute that anyone born on American soil with an American parent is a ‘natural born citizen.’3″ (Emphasis added.)
Scrubadub dub dub…
When you go to footnote 3, it continues to scrub as follows:
“3 In an earlier version of this article, I used the phrase “whose parents are citizens of the United States.” Some readers have misread the original as implying that someone born of only one American parent on American soil is not a “natural born citizen.” That reading ignores the context of the original sentence, which was meant to provide a case where “natural born citizen” status was indisputable… Based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a “natural born citizen…” (Emphasis added.)
That’s some serious scrubbing.
He starts with – “In an earlier version of this article” – but he doesn’t cite to the Michigan Law Review article anywhere in the scrubbed article. These so called “legal scholars” would list a citation to tissue paper if they sneezed in it while writing a report. But good old Solum here, he’s suddenly struck with a case of amnesia citosis.
THE MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW’S RESPONSE
The Michigan Law Review has not published Solum’s revisions. To their credit, the article remains unscrubbed at their web site. I spoke with Amy Murphy, Editor In Chief of the Michigan Law Review this morning. She informed me that they have a general policy of not publishing revisions of articles they have previously published.
I also informed her in detail about the scrubbing by Solum. I explained my background, the case I brought to the Supreme Court, and the timeline of events as they pertained to Solum’s articles. She agreed to listen as I read the original Michigan Law Review version and the recently scrubbed version of the second paragraph to her. When I finished reading, she informed me that the Michigan Law Review has “no comment”.
The quotes around "proclaim" are there for a reason. I agreed that they didn't say, "We hereby proclaim that WKA is a natural-born citizen." What they did say was, essentially, "Here's what 'natural-born subject' always meant, and here's what 'natural-born citizen' always meant, and WKA meets that definition, so he's a citizen." As with my example, if the question is whether someone lives in Texas, I can "find" that they live in Houston and use that to conclude (and proclaim) that they live in Texas without "proclaiming" that they live in Houston.
Not one has anything to do with them saying Ark 'could be president'. Please point out and quote the exact part that says such a thing.
See #310. You'll probably say that since it doesn't include the exact words "Wong Kim Ark can be president," that's not what it means. But really, that's what it means.
That means he isn't.
NBC bump
Here is the full context of the quote you snipped showing that Professor Rice did indeed follow the issue, and far more than you have cared to:
Professor Rice: "On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.
"I suggest no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not. But the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as “birthers” have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama’’s curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records. Perhaps there is nothing to the issues raised. Or perhaps there is. This is potentially serious business. If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world."
Jeff Winston, does it concern you that Sheriff Arpaio's investigation has obtained forensic proof that Barry's BC is forged???
I will stipulate that all federal courts will give Barry a mulligan on his non-US citizen father after two inaugurations, but Barry will not be excused from knowingly hiding a foreign birth and forging a BC and conspiring with HI DOH and the HI governors hide the forgery. Numerous US governors are in jail so it is not a stretch to imagine such high level criminality, given enough incentive.
I posted a vanity detailing my opinion that the legal basis for claiming eligibility for Barry even if foreign born was cleverly being laid here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2857598/posts
"Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya"
"In support of the opinion in US v Marguet-Pillado, 9th Cir. 2011, Judge Gwin, writing for the majority in his “III Analysis” dicta, states: “No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was ‘an accurate statement of the law,’ in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.” On March 1, Sheriff Arpaio’s Posse re-opened the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya by announcing that it had found probable cause to believe that Obama’s long form birth certificate was forged, newspaper birth announcements were unreliable, and that there was now no proof that Obama was born in the USA. A week earlier, with full knowledge of what the Arpaio Posse’s findings would be, “constitutional scholar” Obama’s legal team suddenly started citing the Marguet-Pillado case in multiple PA and GA ballot eligibility state appeals. The following language is included by Obama’s lawyers in the PA and GA MTD filings: “President Obama was a United States citizen from the moment of his birth inHawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have beenmet. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App., 2009); see,United States v. Marguet-Pillado , 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9thCir., 2011). There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office.”
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/.../10-50041.pdf
Absolutely. He spoke about both, but when he spoke about those who were being "subsequently born a citizen of a state," every person who became "at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States," and "every person born within the United States," it's crystal clear that he was talking about those born after the adoption of the Constitution.
So you have added still another Constitution-twister fallacy.
Fallacy: When Rawle said, "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," he was speaking of people who were "grandfathered in" to Presidential eligibility by virtue of having been citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.
Truth: It's completely clear that Rawle was talking about people born after the adoption of the Constitution.
"The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted.
The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently [that is, AFTER the adoption of the Constitution] born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. 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.
Surprisingly, Donofrio’s criticism here has some merit.
I wouldn’t exactly call it “scrubbing,” though. I would call it a correction. And I think Solum explained himself well enough, although I would go farther than his footnote.
I simply don’t think there’s any doubt historically that those born on US soil are natural born citizens. I find no way out of the analysis by both Chancellor Sandford in 1844, and by the US Supreme Court in 1898.
I also think those born US citizens abroad are eligible, too. Which means, again, Ted Cruz is eligible.
You cannot cite any authority on which Rawle relied for his personal opinion as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.
While I think Ted Cruz, born in Canada, is eligible to be President, I don’t believe Obama would be eligible if he had been born in Kenya.
I understand that US law at the time required that a parent have resided in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 in order for his or her child born abroad to be automatically a US citizen. Stanley Ann Dunham was about 3 months short of 19 when Obama was born. If that is the case, then no, Obama if born in Kenya would NOT be eligible to be President.
Personally speaking, I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya, though. I haven’t seen any remotely convincing evidence otherwise. And I haven’t seen any convincing evidence his birth certificate is a fraud, either. Every claim of Arpaio’s posse of which I am aware has been well debunked.
There are also some articles out there alleging that they actually perpetrated fraud on the public. Some of that evidence seems convincing to me.
So my opinion on the matter is that they are either wrong, frauds, or both.
In any event, if you think you can prove Obama was born in Kenya, and get a court to listen to you, go for it. It’s the court’s opinion that would make any practical difference.
I take it that you and I just see and apply written words, especially the Constitution’s, in a different frame of reference. My framework encompasses the the idea that if there is something astray to the Constitution there is indeed a requirement for such actions to have resolution and correction. It is no secret that courts have in the past made decisions as to qualifications/eligibility disputes. I can agree that the courts are under the Constitution and are limited when they,the courts, attempt to change the Constitution. When errors become fraud the concept of voter infallibility is a weak excuse for accepting consequences.
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.