Posted on 05/06/2013 7:09:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
Ted Cruz’s address at the annual South Carolina Republican Party dinner Friday helped feed growing speculation that the freshman senator from Texas is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — and raised yet another round of questions about his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.
Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother and Cuban-born father, and was a citizen from birth — but that Canadian factor puts him in the company of other past candidates who have had their eligibility questioned because of the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
How does Obama qualify for
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Yes, it's been firmly established that, for all but the fringe, "natural born citizen" means citizen at birth. Furthermore, the application of that standard is within the exclusive province of the voters and their electors. In this country, the people choose the president and they are not willing to turn that duty over to elitists in black robes. We are Americans, not Iranians!
There is no rational explanation for twenty-first century adults who go gaga over an eighteenth century proto-Marxist like Vattel. A free people cannot consider seriously political advice emanating from a man who believed that the state holds a first claim on every citizen's labor.
Fidel Castro says, "Viva Vattel."
Even Ariel Castro says, "Me gusta Vattel."
The man is just no good!!
It is you who are claiming that the creation of man made law is the equivalent of creating a natural right.
If "Natural Rights citizenship" were decided based on "place", we would all be Iroquois or something.
The "soil" stuff, is in fact a construction of Feudal law, and is completely subjective to the whim of the ruler.
He doesn’t.
I understand you think you know better than Madison what the criteria for citizenship at birth should be - but in my humble opinion U.S. law should follow more the writings of Madison than the ravings of DiogenesLamp.
So how are you going to determine the parentage of an orphan found wandering the streets of NYC? Can you share your amazing new technique for determining such?
And why your objection to Cruz if he gained citizenship at birth through parentage - when you maintain that parentage should be the primary criteria?
The US Supreme court says Vattel is in the Constitution.
Thanks for clearing it up..Obama does not qualify to be a citizen.
If place is paramount in criteria, then Cruz, not even being born in America, is not qualified to be called natural born.
If parentage, what was Cruz at the moment of birth--an American, a Canadian, or a Cuban?
If the answer is more than one, Houston, we have a problem.
The only thread that yields even the slightest argument for Obama to be "natural born" is that he was born to an American citizen AND he was born in the United States.
Cruz only has one of those criteria.
I admire Jeff for still even arguing with the birthers. The birthers latch on to one con law professor in the country, and then claim everyone else is part of a vast conspiracy...
I gave up arguing with them..
Horse hockey.
You made a lot of sense til you went over the edge.
You are right that a naturalized citizen cannot become POTUS. But you don't need to be born on US soil of two citizen parents to be born a US citizen, and most people who've examined the law and the historical background have concluded that "born a citizen" means the same as "natural born citizen." Many people disagree. But in any case, while your teacher was right that he was ineligible, there's gray area between his case and the NBC definition you propose.
Your mission is spreading disinformation.
Another fogbow troll.
You bumbled in your choice of verbiage. Just take your licks and stop trying to squirm out of it. :)
Why are the “manmade” laws confirming a natural law in one case but only creating “manmade” law in another? Based upon what YOU deem to be the operation of natural law and natural principles?
There is nothing more natural than the fact that children inherit the characteristics of their parents, both physical and metaphysical. It is the passing on of the Characteristics of we Parents which make them OUR children.
Passing a law which says you are "citizen" if you pop out over a certain geographic spot is simply arbitrary. We didn't even apply it to slaves, Indians, or the children of Ambassadors.
I say the operation of “manmade” law confirms the natural allegiance at birth due to natural law principles of place and/or parentage.
We rejected the claim that owing allegiance to a King is "natural" during an event called "the Freaking War of Independence!" And in case anyone forgot it, we reiterated our position during another event called "the Freaking war of 1812!" If "natural-born subject" is based on "natural law", then we rejected the h3ll out of it!
If parentage is the criteria you prefer - why your opposition to Cruz who gets his citizenship at birth through the natural law principle of parentage?
A child is the product of two DNA sources. If one is from one country, and the other is from another, Where would his loyalty lie? Who would he fight for in the event of a war? Now I personally think loyalty is a characteristic instilled in a child by it's parents and community, but this is a hypothetical. The founders had to come up with some semi-sensible methodology to avert foreign influence in the highest level of government, and they simply followed the then currently popular notions of "natural law". Partus Sequitur Patrem.
And yet when reality comes crashing down on your theory like a hammer, how do you deal with it?
If Aldo Mario Bellei (Who was a citizen at birth) was a "natural born citizen", how did he lose his citizenship?
How about a freaking honest answer for a change? I've presented you with a VIOLATION of your theory. Now you either explain how your theory can be correct in face of this VIOLATION, or dispose of your THEORY!
No arguments with that.
I understand you think you know better than Madison what the criteria for citizenship at birth should be
And here you go with the crap. You are wrong on several points.
1. Asserting I think I know better than Madison.
2. Asserting that Madison agrees with you, but not me.
3. That "best" trumps what was enacted.
but in my humble opinion U.S. law should follow more the writings of Madison than the ravings of DiogenesLamp.
And here we have a continuation of the combination "ad hominem-ad vericundium-non-sequitur" all rolled up in one comment.
You take a single Sentence from Madison, and you ignore everything else he said, and you also ignore what he did. He let a man remain in French custody for a Year and a Half because he agreed with Ambassador John Armstrong, that a birth certificate is not proof of citizenship. And you have the nerve to accuse me of "raving" because YOU think you know what Madison meant?
You guys have chutzpah, i'll give you that.
So how are you going to determine the parentage of an orphan found wandering the streets of NYC? Can you share your amazing new technique for determining such?
Yeah, it's called PCR, and the fact that you have to ask about it indicates you are ill suited to discuss matters which require a broad range of General knowledge.
And why your objection to Cruz if he gained citizenship at birth through parentage - when you maintain that parentage should be the primary criteria?
Because it is a house divided. Prior to the 1934 citizenship act, and the Cable act, Cruz would not be a citizen at all.
Here's the thing you just don't get. You CAN'T Change the meaning of words in the US Constitution by voting on a NEW MEANING for them.
You are dishonest and can apparently only carry your argument through deceit and misrepresentation. So take your licks being a loony zealot for a lost cause who thinks he knows better than Madison what the laws of America should be.
I have done thousands of pcr assays. You cannot tell who the parents of an orphan child is unless you the parents were also DNA identified. So you do the PCR on the 13 short repeat sequences CODIS uses and you do not find a match. How can you tell who the parents are, and if they were US citizens?
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.