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 ...
The way dual citizenship works (where legally recognized by U.S. law) is that the laws of the country in which the dual citizen physically is at the moment apply.
That is, taking Cruz as an example, if he were in the USA and Canada were to draft him, the USA would tell Canada to go pound sand, but if he were to step over the border onto Canadian soil, be impressed into military service, then the USA would say, “Sorry buddy, we can’t help you. Why don’t you try going AWOL and sneak back over the border? Then we will use our full might to protect you, Okay.”
Now, if one of our non-dual, exclusively U.S. citizens were to be impressed into the Canadian military while visiting Canada, you bet that we would go get him back, by force if necessary.
You're correct, it is sad. The inability of these folks to accept reality (that Obama really is the president) has rendered them incapable of fairly considering the qualifications of Cruz, Rubio and Jindal.
A constitutional incapacity to accept an important aspect of reality can be truly crippling. However, I suspect that most of these folks will regain their clarity when Obama no longer is the president.
Sorry, Vattel, but in less than four years, you're going to lose most of your devotees. I'm sure that, if he's up there watching, he's as baffled as anyone by the birther craze.
An insult with flowery words is still just an insult. Your smugness shines through your flowery words.
You caught me. I am a supporter of originalism and textualism so I do indeed suffer from “precedential madness” just like the justices you castigate. I plead guilty.
I really do like to understand the historic context of modern day judicial decisions and I am a believer in “stare decisis.”
I am anxious about one more Obama nomination to the Supreme Court that might shift the balance of judicial philosophy to a “the Constitution is a living document” majority where ignoring “precedent madness” will be the pathology of the day.
Oh, but they were. At the beginning, the only citizens were citizens of the States. Everyone was 'alien' and everyone who wanted to be part of the newly created United States had to follow the same procedure of taking an oath in front of a local magistrate.
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
-----
..who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
TWO YEARS. Since final ratification wasn't until 1789, the 'jurisdiction of the United States' had only existed for ONE year when this Act was passed, so it would be another year before anyone could 'qualify' under this act.
------
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
This was in conjunction with the Acts being passed BY the States - “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.“
If, as you propose, any branch of government had the justifiable authority to say someone is *natural born*, they would have simply made a declaration stating everyone in the country at the time was a natural born citizen and save themselves and the States great deal of trouble.
-----
Already answered (#286).
No, it was not an answer . It was a total nonsequiter concerning a different type of law and a judge who has no relevance to this discussion.
Repeating your first flippant answer a second time does not constitute a response.
------
Okay, your turn. Why did the dissent object,
Because the court finding someone who was a natural born foreign citizen a citizen of the United States via convoluted reasoning concerning the 14th Amendment was ludicrous?
[See, I can do the 'flippant' answer thing, too!]
Again, the 'implications' of particular words in the deliberation or the dissent make no difference. It's the question before the court and the final determination of it that matters.
------
BTW - I see no purpose in any further discussion since you treat your questions as being of the up-most importance while you casually disregard any questions I pose.
There has been enough of that going around.
----
YEEE HAW!
Ride 'em cowboy!
Post 354 from Kenny Bunk: “So, Jeff, you are in the camp of those who believe the off-spring of two illegal aliens born in the US is a natural born Citizen? OK, then!”
Jeff responded: “No, I’ve never said that. That particular issue has never been specifically addressed. I think using the ancient historical definitions, it’s very plausible to argue that the children of illegal aliens shouldn’t be natural born citizens.”
Really?
See your response in post 141:
“So the children even of aliens were natural born subjects. And in America, they became natural born citizens.”
While you don’t specifically mention “illegal” aliens in your response above, illegal aliens was one of the selections in my list, and you didn’t refute any of them.
To refresh your memory, Jeff believes that:
Born to illegal alien foreign national father and American mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)
Born to illegal alien foreign national mother and American father in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of mother’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)
Born to illegal alien foreign national father and illegal alien foreign national mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s and mother’s country(ies) (as they may be from different foreign countries) (i.e. not a foreign citizen (not subject to American jurisdiction) or dual citizen or triple citizen)
In other words, you know you have lost.
Silly words from a person who cannot even fathom my position. K58, when you originally started manically, nonsensically responding to my posts, I made a simple point. I.e.: you have no idea what my position is. Iow, you were refuting someone else’s point. So I said, ‘Paraphrase my position, THEN refute it’.
You were unable to do so.
So I asked you a second time. ‘Accurately rephrase my position, THEN refute it’.
Fail.
This is your third & last chance. Either restate my position accurately, THEN post your mindless twaddle, or admit you cannot understand simple, basic English.
If you cannot grasp even the most basic concepts, then (1) it explains why you babble so irrationally, and (2) I have no time for you.
So A or B. A being demonstrate you actually have some idea what I’m talking about, or B babble your nonsense into an echo chamber.
& if, for whatever reason, you opt for B, I won’t be paying you any further attention. Nonsense is still nonsense, no matter how loudly & relentlessly you scream it.
LOL!
Since you have YET to provide evidence for your initial assertion the 14th Amendment 'changed things',
and have provided nothing but blather to counter my last substantiated assertion...
I submit that your definition of 'lost' is as skewed as your definition of *natural born*
------
Have a nice day.....
cowboy.
In addition to being a kook, you are also a control freak.
Request denied.
I do not repeat stupidity.
If you were a conservative you would know that ABORTION is the primary complaint against the 14th amendment. Only Liberals would not know this because they don't bother exploring the legal underpinnings of legalized abortion. Pro-Lifers are well familiar with them.
When you pulled that racism bullshit, I realized immediately that you don't think like a conservative.
You went immediately from being a misguided conservative to enemy troll.
No reason to yell and I don’t agree with you.
If Cruz was standing in Calgary when the draft was called he would be subject to their jurisdiction until he quietly left the country.
You ignored the child thing too.
“Or, to put it into five very simple words:
They just weren’t that afraid [of people w foreign allegiances getting into the WH & purposefully destroying the country].”
Thank you, thank you, thank you JW. You finally made my point in such clear, irrefutable terms that even low information people can grasp it. Thank you!
You have said, in so many words, there was ZERO benefit to the Republic in allowing persons w foreign allegiance into the WH. ZERO.
Over against no advantage WHATSOEVER, we see the incalculable risk of allowing someone, such as BHO, to occupy the highest office in the land. W his self-stated primary allegiance to his non/anti-American foreign affiliation [which he came by via birth], he is ruling as an enemy agent, doing everything in his power to destroy the country he admits to hating. [He hates it as a direct result of his foreign allegiance. According to him, white man’s greed is the reason places like Kenya suffer. Had we not taken advantage of their people as slaves, we wouldn’t have wealth today. So of course we need to be divested of all our wealth & power, so it can be given back to Obama’s self-stated “true homeland”.]
Just in case you missed what you did, allow me to offer an analogy.
A leading medical research dr. is asked about a certain vaccine. It is cheap, risk-free, readily available, and 100 percent effective against a deadly disease. Yet the dr. refuses to receive the vaccination. He is asked, ‘What medical, health or other type of benefit is there to foregoing this vaccination?’
He says, ‘No benefit whatsoever. It’s just that I am not afraid’.
A short time later he contracts the disease & dies. So his one great ‘benefit’ (for eschewing the vaccination) was actually a fatal liability. His lack of fear directly brought about his death.
Yet you claim the Framers were wise & insightful enough to weigh the risk of an Obama-like traitor [i.e.: one who is an enemy agent precisely BECAUSE he has foreign allegiances via birth] & opted not to safeguard the Republic because “they just weren’t that afraid”.
Iow, they considered the potential destruction of the Republic no big deal.
The assertion is lunatic on its face.
But it does make my point w flying colors.
I.e.: there were only huge, major upsides to keeping those w divided loyalties out of the WH, and ZERO benefit to be gained by letting them in. [Unless of course you, like Obama, desire the destruction of the USA. Then it would look like a major plus, at least to you. Otherwise, face it: the Framers were just not that reckless or stupid.]
Thanks again for a job well done.
Iow, you have no idea what my position is. But hey, you didn’t need to advertise it. You’ve made it crystal clear all along. No wonder you can’t refute my point. You have no earthly idea what it is. Your loss.
You cannot GET to originalism by quoting later day judges. (especially after Roosevelt.) To get there you have to quote ORIGINAL sources.
I really do like to understand the historic context of modern day judicial decisions and I am a believer in “stare decisis.”
I am an absolute opponent of the "stare decisis" principle of law. The Fact that some previous court ruled something is no basis on which to rule subsequently. Any mistake made by the previous court is necessarily compounded by basing subsequent decisions on previous mistakes.
Again, if the original court flies into the ground, it causes all subsequent courts to follow it into the ground as well. All cases should rely on original sources and intent, not on subsequent opinions by disconnected judges a hundred years after the fact.
Amen!
What on earth induced you to use the N word? Did you not realize it would make you look like a Dem, projecting your own racism onto conservatives?
We must have different versions of the USA Constitution and the history that goes with the Constitution. In my years of interest about the Constitution the requirement was you fit the man/person for/as to the Constitution and certainly you do not fit the Constitution for/as to any man/person. There is no nonsense about adhering to my version of the Constitution. As for me I use the same criteria as to Obama.
“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:”
Thanks for the ping, Carp. This is one of the most fascinating & informative posts on the thread. A definite keeper.
Obama’s legal supporters are nothing more than common nightwalkers. They prostitute themselves in the cause of trying to prove him eligible. But at least they are onboard w his destruction of traditional America. I.e.: at least they’re whoring themselves for a cause that they believe in.
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.