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 ...
I’m sure I can produce a few hundred such quotes if you like.
Why should we accept Rawle’s view as the standard for what the Framers believed about what a “natural born Citizen” was? What evidence does Rawle cite to support his conclusion on what is a natural born Citizen? Rawle was an abolitionist. He became a member of the Maryland Society promoting abolition in 1792 and then its president in 1818. He also argued against the constitutionality of slavery before the state supreme court in 1805. We have to consider whether his postition on slavery colored his view of who was a “natural born Citizen.
> What will the libs and lefties be saying?
Differenc is Cruz will actually produce a birth certificate AND college transcripts...; )
Ping to post warning “don’t feed the trolls”.
Also see post #69 by mortrey.
Information leading to Minor vs. Happersett was suppressed at that point in time for a reason!
No, Any Canadian citizen of the voting age of 18 or older can become prime minister of Canada.
Since Cruz is NOT a Canadian citizen he cannot be PM.
Shut up. All you spout is idiocy. You know nothing worth knowing and the world would appreciate it if you didn’t attempt to communicate with them.
In 1787 when the Constitution was written, the Wives automatically took the citizenship of their husbands. In 1854 (If I remember correctly) they codified this into law.
This wasn't changed until the Cable act of 1922 which made it possible for a woman to convey citizenship themselves. It was further expanded in 1934 by the "Citizenship Act of 1934."
According to the rules in place in 1787, your children are qualified. Look up the legal principle "Partus Sequitur Patrem" for a better understanding.
But since they've never understood the issue anyway, judging by their articles on the subject, what would one expect!
I thought something funky was going on. I tried to comment numerous times, and it refused to allow it. So National Review is practicing Censorship now? I am beginning to think that many of the people i've considered to be allies during my life, were actually enablers for the Enemy. Vichy Republicans, in fact.
Reminds me of the time some Legislature voted to make pi equal to 3.0. They thought it was too complicated being 3.414...
Let me ask you a question. Do you think a "natural born citizen" can be stripped of citizenship for not living inside the United States?
I was not aware that Cruz had dual citizenship.
No. Because it is contrary to demonstrable facts. Besides that, ALAN DERSHOWITZ? One of the most liberal lawyers in the history of liberal lawyers? Really? A Supposedly conservative organization citing Dershowitz?
As I've pointed out many times, it's not really that complicated, and virtually everyone who has ever studied the issue, both conservative and liberal, comes real close to agreeing on all aspects of the meaning of "natural born citizen." No, it doesn't take two citizen parents for those born on US soil.
Yes, like a retard, you keep putting forth the argument that large numbers of people MUST be correct, because there are a LOT of them. ("Argument from numbers", since you don't like the Latin names.)
The only people in creation who don't agree are a bunch of quack law theorists, virtually none of whom have any legal training at all.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Judging by the mockery made of the law by people with legal training, I regard it as probably the best qualification for insuring someone won't get stuck in that same old stupid rut that has trapped so many people.
And yes, I know. There's one guy on the face of the earth, who can't even explain why he says it takes 2 citizen parents plus birth on US soil, but he does. And he taught Constitutional law somewhere. And his opinion trumps that of practically every other person who could be called a legal expert in the whole of US history, including folks who were EXTREMELY close to the Founders such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker.
And here we trot out Rawle again. I'm beginning to think it is Rawle we have to thank for making such a f&$%#@% mess out of this issue. British Loyalist, British Trained, and applying the very Subjectship law we overthrew. The Notion that we should strap the chains of feudalism back on us so soon after we had successfully thrown them off seems so contradictory that it is beyond belief that people such as yourself can even consider the idea plausible.
Sorry, but's all BS. You are misrepresenting and twisting the Constitution and the law.
Still using Goebbels old adage. REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT. It is you who are guilty of what you accuse.
Speaking of which, I am currently compiling a list of fallacies used to support this BS claim, along with explanations of exactly WHY they are fallacies.
No doubt they will be as sensible as your other writing, and therefore not even worth looking at.
I am up to 39 of them so far.
I suspect some of them are just versions of you repeating yourself.
Didn't Cruz's father flee Cuba and Castro? How much allegiance can he owe a country that would have put him in jail if they could have gotten their hands on him?
I didn't bother quoting the rest of your comment because this one section demonstrates that you have a massive error in your analysis.
Congress does not have the power to redefine ANY terms in the US Constitution. If they had that power they could define "Arms" as back scratchers, and we could have no guns. They could define "Press" as meaning "wine press" and we would have no more newspapers.
The notion that congress can change the meaning of constitutional words by passing laws is not only stupid, it is incredibly dangerous. On this you are absolutely wrong. Congress cannot change the meaning of ANYTHING in the US Constitution without passing a Constitutional amendment.
Really? What Supreme Court case was this? I've studied the issue for years, and I've never heard of the Supreme court issuing a ruling regarding George Romney.
I think you just made that up, or are simply repeating ignorant crap which other people have said. That such a case has never been decided by the Supreme court is pretty much accepted by all sides of this issue.
Remember, none of our first 13 Presidents would have qualified under a strict reading. George Washington was not “born” in the United States, it didn’t exist at the time of his birth.
Dude, you are in over your head in this discussion. Even the most basic people who argue this issue are aware that Article II contains a grandfather clause which makes all the founders eligible to be President.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,(1787) shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
I am done with the “birther issue”. You don’t like Obama, you should have worked harder to defeat him.
You can't defeat the combined effects of massive Voter Fraud, the Free Shit Army, and the Entire Democrat Media Complex. I think the nation is done.
False. The second part of the qualifications statement is "or a citizen at the writing of this constitution" (paraphrased). Those whose lives predate the U.S. were deliberately grandfathered in.
I do not claim to have a definitive answer on this subject, but I do find it curious that the framers used a term which had a specific meaning at the time and now there is argument as to what they meant. Words mean things - and much of the argument over NBC status comes down to fudging the meaning of words - on both sides of the argument.
The USSC has no problem fudging words.
Appeals to original intent concerning NBC will be as successful as appeals to original intent concerning the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause.
I already know the answer.
Those who ignore the specific requirement of "natural born citizen" for the President over Senators and Congressmen are the ones who won't give an answer.
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.