Kinda resembles this one.
What other nation has always had freedom of Arms?
Posted on 05/08/2013 8:03:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In one of my first essays for NRO back in 2005 (“Are You an Originalist?”), I selected the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” criterion for eligibility to be president—a provision that then seemed at the time to be beyond the distorting effects of political bias—to illustrate that everyone intuitively recognizes the common-sense principle at the heart of the interpretive methodology of originalism: namely, that the meaning of a constitutional provision is to be determined in accordance with the meaning that it bore at the time that it was adopted. The public debate in 2008 over whether John McCain, having been born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone to parents who were American citizens, was a “natural born Citizen” ratified my point, as virtually all commentators purported to undertake an originalist inquiry.
I hadn’t seen any reason to comment on the left-wing “birther” attacks on Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president. Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who was then an American citizen. Under the laws then in place, he was an American citizen by virtue of his birth.
As this Congressional Research Service report sums it up (p. 25; see also pp. 16-21), the “overwhelming evidence of historical intent, general understandings [in 18th-century America], and common law principles underlying American jurisprudence thus indicate[s] that the most reasonable interpretation of ‘natural born’ citizens would include those who are considered U.S. citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ … under existing federal statutory law incorporating long-standing concepts of jus sanguinis, the law of descent.” In other words, there is strong originalist material to support the semantic signal that “natural born Citizen” identifies someone who is a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of his birth—as distinguished from someone who is naturalized later in life as a citizen. (In McCain’s case, the dispute turned on whether he was indeed an American citizen by virtue of his birth—or was instead naturalized a citizen under a law enacted when he was eleven months old. For more, see law professor Gabriel Chin’s lengthy article making the case against McCain.)
To my surprise, the New Republic’s Noam Scheiber tries to argue that Cruz’s embrace of constitutional originalism somehow means that Cruz can’t determine that he is a “natural born Citizen.” But the only evidence that Scheiber offers for this position is the assertion (which Scheiber mischaracterizes as a concession) by a non-originalist law professor in an MSNBC interview that the proposition that a person is a “natural born Citizen” if he is a citizen by virtue of his birth “isn’t really clear cut if you limit yourself to the actual wording of the Constitution” (that’s Scheiber’s paraphrase) but instead depends on “how our understandings have evolved over time.” Scheiber both overlooks the powerful originalist evidence in support of Cruz’s status as a “natural born Citizen” and misunderstands how originalist methodology operates. (In public-meaning originalism, you don’t “limit yourself to the actual wording of the Constitution,” and you don’t find yourself lost simply because the Constitution “never defines what ‘natural born’ means.” You instead look to the public meaning of the term at the time it was adopted.)
My point here isn’t to contend that the originalist evidence points entirely in one direction. As law professor Michael Ramsey observes in a post that I’ve run across while finalizing this post (a post that also takes issue with Scheiber), there are originalist scholars who don’t “find the argument entirely conclusive.” But Scheiber’s piece is a cheap whack at Cruz as well as a cheap whack at originalism.
Based on what the Fourteenth actually says? Born in America - you’re a citizen. It actually extends citizenship to those born in now American territory, even if it wasn’t American territory when they were born.
Kinda resembles this one.
What other nation has always had freedom of Arms?
“If Ted Cruz was elected President of the USA, no foreign power would claim his obedience.”
It doesn’t work that way. A claim exists even if it is not exercised. Cruz is a Canadian citizen. He is therefore a subject of the Queen.
His answer to that is going to be "Buh buh buh buh buh... COMMON LAW!"
It won't be a correct answer, but with Jeff, it never is.
Um... that's NOT what the 14th Amendment says.
The 14th Amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
Trumbull: "Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
Howard: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
Additionally, U.S. Secretaries of State have ruled that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means not subject to a foreign power...
In 1883, Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen ruled Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, in 1885, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Cruz is a Canadian citizen. He is therefore a subject of the Queen.”
And y’all don’t know why people think you are lunatics?
“Incorrect. This IS a settled question.”
This is a “settled” question like Global Warming was “settled” science.
“There is no legal argument about needing two citizen parents.”
If you changed the meaning of natural born citizen you are correct.
“Ted Cruz DOES fall in a gray area.”
How can Ted Cruz fall into a gray ares if this is “settled” law?
“If Ted Cruz was elected President of the USA, no foreign power would claim his obedience. That is silly.”
It’s not “silly”. Whether they “would” or not, is not the point. The point is they “could” - possibly Canada, most assuredly Cuba.
Not sure what information you have that “All 50 states” consider it settled, nor that all 535 member of Congress consider it settled. The fact that we have 535 members of Congress who cowardly refuse to publicly even discuss the issue does not mean they all agree with your definition.
The only court that matters is SCOTUS and they are evading the issue (Clarence Thomas’s words).
If it’s so black and white and 0bama meets your definition of natural born citizen, why wouldn’t SCOTUS have taken one of the cases that came to them, ruled that anyone can be President regardless of where he was born and what citizenship his parents held at the time, and be done with?
The reason is that they know he doesn’t meet the definition and they fear the repercussions of a finding stating he’s NOT eligible, and what it could do to the Country. Ruling 0bama eligible would just tick off the “few” of us “fringe” “birthers”. Ruling him ineligible, well that opens up a very LARGE can of worms that they’re afraid to open - which is why they’re “evading” the issue.
So why is someone who’s never set foot in another nation subject to a foreign country?
“If it’s so black and white and 0bama meets your definition of natural born citizen, why wouldn’t SCOTUS have taken one of the cases that came to them, ruled that anyone can be President regardless of where he was born and what citizenship his parents held at the time, and be done with?”
Because they made a ruling like that in 1898, and don’t feel a need to repeat themselves...except that WHERE he was born IS important. Had he been born in Kenya, he might not qualify for US citizenship at all.
But if he was born in the USA, then the citizenship of either/both parents is irrelevant, unless they were ambassadors or members of an invading army.
Worldwide jurisdiction via nationality law.
Prime example:
The U.S. asserts JURISDICTION to tax on the basis of two factors: source of income, and citizenship. If a foreign individual or corporation receives income from a U.S. source, that income is subject to tax. If a U.S. citizen living abroad received income from a foreign source, that income is subject to tax merely because of the U.S. citizenship of the receiver. The IRS Office of Assistant Commissioner (International) has primary U.S. jurisdiction over overseas taxpayers.
Thus we have a perfect example of WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION over a country's citizens within a certain area: The U.S. taxes the foreign-source income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The same principle applies to the U.K.'s birthright citizenship law (in Obama's case, the British Nationality Act of 1948). The U.K. had WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION to bestow automatic British citizenship at birth to any child born worldwide to a British father provided that the father of such a person is not a citizen of the U.K. by descent only.
Obama was born a Brit via his alien father. The DNC has already admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 "governed" (exact quote) his status. As such, Obama was NOT under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. at birth, as required by the 14th Amendment and confirmed by the citizenship clause's author. Obama was born under the U.K.'s citizenship jurisdiction, both subject to a foreign power and owing allegiance to somebody else.
Neither was Obama's father permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth, so Gray's explicit ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to him.
Clearly FALSE, as evidenced by the rulings of U.S. Secretaries of State.
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen ruled in 1883 that Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject transient alien father.
Similarly, in 1885, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was a transient alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chester Arthur disagrees with you.
“Because they made a ruling like that in 1898, and don’t feel a need to repeat themselves...except that WHERE he was born IS important. Had he been born in Kenya, he might not qualify for US citizenship at all.”
The ruling in 1898 (WKA) that seems to be the holy grail for you does not address a person’s eligibility to serve as president. The cases that have come to SCOTUS re: 0bama, are completely different than WKA, but SCOTUS is “evading” them. Why?
American law supercedes British law within America jurisdiction. This isn’t difficult. Yes, you’re correct that the British issue a claim on everyone born to British nationals. I agree, this makes Obama not a natural born citizen even if born in America.
But here’s the rub. Concerning American citizenship - born in America, you’re an American citizen. Once again - you’re conflating two different arguments. It’s not just ‘what do Americans’ have claims on them, it works the other way too, ‘what does America claim’. America claims that those born on American soil have American citizenship. They can choose - by not living in America, by taking up residency abroad and they can choose to turn in their citizenship. But the point is that they possess this citizenship which may be exercised if they want to. America doesn’t strip minors of their citizenship unless they make the decision to drop it and the other particulars apply.
Why? Because the United States understands that the desires of the minor might not align with those of the parents.
Think who are lunatics?
Legally that’s the case.
1. Cruz is a Canadian citizen.
2. Canadian citizens are subjects of the Queen.
Ergo Cruz is a subject of the Queen.
Today the more ‘PC’ term is ‘Commonwealth citizen’. But yes, Cruz is legally a British subject.
There has never been such a ruling. The closest was U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which ruled that those born in the U.S. to permanently domiciled aliens were U.S. citizens at birth.
Note, though, that Gray declined to specifically rule Ark a 'natural born citizen.'
I think it’s hilarious you somehow hold all the following, and contradictory positions.
1. Cruz is a natural born citizen and eligible
2. Obama is not a natural born citizen and eligible
3. Birthright citizenship does not exist.
Please explain to me how all three can be true at the same time. It’s impossible.
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.