National Review Online: The Cruz Birthers

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343914/cruz-birthers-eliana-johnson ^

[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

[Brown Deer]

To my knowledge, Mary Washington never became a citizen of the United States.

Mary Ball was born in Virginia in September of 1708. Her mother and grandparents were also born in Virginia. On March 6, 1730/31, she married Augustine Washington in Richmond, VA. Martha Washington lived until August 25, 1789, more than 13 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

[Nero Germanicus]

So you don’t believe that Justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito are Originalists, then? Interesting.
What would you describe their judicial philosophy to be?
Justice Scalia prefers the term “Textualist” to describe his judicial philosophy.
“Stare decisis” is a guide for later rulings it is not an anchor on them.

[MamaTexan]

but you haven't offered any documentation that every existing resident of the fledgling US had to appear in court to make an "oath or affirmation"

{sigh}

From the top of HERE, under 'The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America'

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

You've seen these repeatedly at the top of the same mega-post and have asserted, more than once that you agreed with it.

Are you now saying you don't know WHAT they are or why they are worded they WAY they are?

-----

I didn't say anything about the intent of WKA, only its effects.

The intent is the cause of the effect, so your reason for pointing out the difference was what, exactly?

[Smokeyblue]

"The clear wording says “foreign allegiance” -— I think you will agree that Cruz could ignore any draft notice from Canada, he is NOT and NEVER WAS obligated to obey any such Canadian draft notice."

You miss the very obvious point that Canada sending him a draft notice is the ENTIRE point. It is a claim upon him whether he ignores it or not. The claim itself is self-evident.

They wouldn't send a natural born citizen of the US a draft notice since a NBC would not be listed as one of their citizens.

[lentulusgracchus]

To refresh your memory, Jeff believes that:

Born to illegal alien foreign national father and ....

Awwww, let's just cut to the chase, okay?

Jeff Winston believes that anything Barky tells you he is, he is!! And if Barky changes his mind, then he isn't!

What was it the Red Queen said, about believing two impossible things before breakfast? It's true, it's true!! Just ask Jeff!

I bellyfeel Big Brother. I bellyfeel doubleplusgood prolefeed. Ingsoc forever!

[lentulusgracchus]

Civility ping.

"Bang! Bang! Die, conservative scum!!"

</off Rahm Emmanuel>

[Seizethecarp]

“This is where you birthers fail.”

You don’t know me and you apparently don’t know that “birthers” cannot be thrown in a bucket as the same.

I, personally, am the Sgt. Friday of “birthers.” Just the facts, Ma’am! But what are the facts? Barry has made it near impossible to determine the facts with full discovery in a court of law. Barry has never legally released his HI LFBC i.e. signed a legal release for HI DOH and Kapiolani to permit access to his original records for inspection or to receive an original LFBC, not a pdf photocopy.

SCOTUS has never ruled on the eligibility of a person with Barry’s exact fact pattern in the context of all statutes and case law as of now. Therefore, IMO, no conclusive statements regarding Barry’s NBC eligibility are justified.

Does that make me a “birther”?

[Jeff Winston]

Clearly, jus soli was not enough to make them citizens (let alone natural born Citizens). That the Fourteenth Amendment exists at all is proof positive that the founders did not consider jus soli sufficient by and of itself to confer natural born Citizenship status – blood and dirt were both required.

Jus soli was enough. No such citizenship was being denied on the basis of a lack of citizen parents. It was being denied on the basis of RACE. It was only black people (and sometimes, perhaps, Oriental people), NOT the children of (for example) German or Norwegian immigrants who were being denied their citizenship.

Again, the denial was NOT on the basis of "non-citizen parents." It was strictly on the basis of RACE.

And those who passed the 14th Amendment were very clear that they were passing a law that was DECLARATORY of the law as it already existed.

As they understood it, they were not even making new law. They were simply declaring the law as it already existed and ought to be.

For that reason, your statement is not accurate.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

From the top of HERE, under 'The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America'

So when you said you had provided documentation, you meant I should go read Jeff's post. Okay then.

I looked up some of those names, and it appears that those naturalization acts applied to "persons who had left the State during the Revolution, and adhered to the crown, or, in the words of the statute, had 'joined the enemies of the State.'" That's a long, long--long--way from demonstrating that every resident of the US had to take a loyalty oath, regardless of their status during the war. Keep trying.

The intent is the cause of the effect, so your reason for pointing out the difference was what, exactly?

Wow, really? You've never heard of the law of unintended consequences? You can't always divine intent from effect.

[Jeff Winston]

To refresh your memory, Jeff believes that:

Obviously, you are clearly and deliberately misrepresenting what I believe, since I stated that pretty clearly.

I think there's a case to be made regarding the children of illegals. The case appears legally doubtful to me in the light of the Wong Kim Ark decision, but I think it's worth making.

Historically, going back to the ancient principles, I think such a case would be on pretty strong ground. But I think it is doubtful that the Court would go back that far.

I don't pretend to know what the Supreme Court would decide in such a case, since WKA only really addressed the situation of FULLY LEGAL AND RESIDENT aliens.

[Jeff Winston]

PS - Your apparently deliberate misrepresentation of my position is hardly surprising, since that, and ad hominem attacks, and false accusations of being a “liberal,” a “troll,” a “paid shill,” etc., are what those on your side of the debate routinely do.

They are nothing if not dishonorable.

[lentulusgracchus]

"Stare decisis” is a guide for later rulings it is not an anchor on them.

Stare decisis does not bind the Supreme Court at all; it's only good until after the Justices have lunch, as a matter of fact.

Every time the Justices sit down to reconsider an aspect of the law, the door is open for reconsideration of earlier opinions and precedents.

In cases important to liberals, even a lack of new data or facts has been insufficient (as in Lawrence 2003) to forestall the Court from deciding constitutional law de novo, as if -- in the case of Lawrence -- Bowers vs. Hardwick (ink still smeary) had never existed.

Nothing impedes them. There is no law, there is no truth, there is no God.

[Jeff Winston]

If you say that you are not a racist, then I will take your word for it.

Since the entire PURPOSE of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that civil rights and citizenship were not denied to black people, and since you implied that the 14th Amendment was a bad thing, and since YOU certainly don’t act like what I consider a conservative to be, and since you have CERTAINLY spewed hate in the past, it was an honest mistake.

Frankly, I am still doubtful. But I will do my best to take your word for it.

[Vendome]

Was the Hebrew born here?

[Jeff Winston]

You have said, in so many words, there was ZERO benefit to the Republic in allowing persons w foreign allegiance into the WH. ZERO.

Not exactly.

First, I don't think the Framers thought they WERE allowing "persons with a foreign allegiance" into the White House.

I simply don't see any indication that they saw persons born on US soil, though their parents might not have naturalized, as having "a foreign allegiance."

Part of this may be due to the different world they lived in. The odds of a person born here going to the country of his or her parents' origin were virtually nil. That's at least a little bit different now.

Still, I KNOW people born here with immigrant parents. The kids grow up speaking English. And if they ever go to visit the parents' country of origin, even if they speak the language (and quite a few don't), they understand very quickly that that country is NOT "their" country.

And that's TODAY.

Secondly, I think that if the Constitution were worded the way you demand, that James Madison, at least, would feel that gave it a "tincture of illiberality."

And I base that statement on Madison's own words.

Third, even if there were a potential benefit to establishing a rule, it doesn't follow that the Founders MUST have established every rule that could POSSIBLY have a potential benefit.

I would say there would be a potential benefit to Constitutionally disallowing all persons with a felony conviction from being President. But the Founders didn't forbid that, either.

[WXRGina]

SatinDoll, I appreciate your reply, but I alread fully understand what a natural born citizen is, and my “question” was a rhetorical one.

Only the people who refuse to see the distinction the Founders made between the requirements for President, as opposed to Senators and House members will not give a correct answer—mostly the Obots, and now the Cruz and Rubio-bots. Cruz and Rubio might make excellent senators or representatives, but they are not eligible to be President.

I, too, have been writing about this since before the 2008 election.

[Jeff Winston]

It is surprising to you because you, apparently, are not familiar with Donofrio’s body of work.

No, it's surprising because I've read quite a bit of Donofrio's word, and so much of it was based on fallacy.

[Jeff Winston]

Still, they were married.

So I still think that IF Obama were born in Kenya, then he would be ineligible.

[Fantasywriter]

“Secondly, I think that if the Constitution were worded the way you demand”

That is the single stupidest comment on the thread. What is it w you people—i.e.: the people who advocate for POTUSs w foreign allegiances/divided loyalty? Are you really this thick, or do you misunderstand on purpose???

[Vendome]

Kandahunas?

LOL! Snort!