Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.
WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.
GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”
With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?
Continued below.
You are right. A natural born citizen needs no statute to make him a citizen at birth. Without this statute, Cruz would not be a citizen.
Is that by Canadian law or US law or some treaty?
Or does that work just like the child of illegal aliens from Mexico born here is a US citizen or a Mexican citizen? Both? Neither? Who decides?
Natural born citizenship doesn't require any treaty from any nation, since mom, dad and baby are all citizens of the same place, at the time and place where the child is born.
No treaty required. No foreign nations involved. No disagreements from anyone or any nation or ruler. Everyone agrees about that child's citizenship. That's as natural as it gets, and as pure and undiluted as citizenship can get.
That's why the FFs chose it for the POTUS with all of that concentrated power and responsibility over all of US. We all need to agree that the person in that office is one of US and no other.
Now the circumstances are on the other foot, and I will guess that Cruz will get the same treatment and be eligible for the Presidency.
As I’m sure you are aware, U.S. presidential elections are conducted on a state by state basis through the accumulation of Electoral votes. Therefore state courts are controlling authority on eligibility. Several of the decisions I excerpted were appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States which refused to review the lower court rulings so those rulings stand as settled law.
It would be great if what is “common sense” to you could be confirmed by judicial rulings
The Supreme Court of the United States has had 25 appeals of lower court rulings to review. They have rejected review (granting a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) of them all. There aren’t four Justices (under the Supreme Court’s “Rule of Four” tradition for accepting appeals) who are interested.
But INA 301(a) refers to "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If 301(g) is a naturalization statute, isn't 301(a) also? Doesn't that mean everyone "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is also "naturalized at birth" and therefore not a natural-born citizen? Who's left?
My mistake, I meant to say “naturalized citizen.” The naturalization statutes are in different sections of 8 USC from the Nationals and Citizen at Birth sections.
US Code - Part II: NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION
Search US Code - Part II: NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III/part-II
There are four people in the U.S. who can demonstrate perfect Article III standing due to their alleged particularized injury: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the only other people to receive Electoral votes under the 12th Amendment and to therefore have a chance to become President by winning a majority of Electoral votes.
None of those four filed suit.
A person born in the US to citizen parents would be a citizen without INA 301(a).
In 2008 another black man was on many ballots, so he would have been an alternate black candidate to many voters, albeit impossible to know precisely how many had your little barry bastard boy been disqualified. The crooked courts will not let that man have standing to challenge. ... Loosen your kneepads, n00b, you’re cutting off circulation to your sycobamaphantic brain.
Then why wouldn't such a person be included under section (a): a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
I believe a judge found that even had Keyes won every single state he was on the ballot in, he still wouldn't have had enough electoral votes to win. So Obama's candidacy robbed him of nothing.
Ah yes, the n00b shadow for the NG n00b chimes in immediately. Do you hold his hose for him when he waters?
Are you suggesting that a person born in the US to citizen parents would not be a citizen?
Not at all. But if I'm following you correctly your argument is that Cruz cannot be an NBC because the circumstances granting his citizenship are included in 8 USC § 1401 and anyone gaining citizenship under that law are naturalized citizens. The clause I quoted is also in that code so wouldn't that also make them naturalized? By your definition?
Do you ever pull your head out and come up for air?
I was just pointing out, again, where your claims are wrong, again, and that Keyes did not have standing to sue because his candidacy was a joke.
Would Cruz be a citizen without USC § 1401?
You ask
“ Who decides?
have you read any of the many links provided in this email which outline the United States Law for this?
It couldn’t be spelled out any clearer. YOU may not like it but it is quite clear.
so I repeat
Senator Ted Cruz was a US citizen at birth.
and he still is
No. But then why the need for Section (a) if the purpose of the act is not to define those people who do not need to be naturalized, but instead are natural born citizens at birth?
I don’t like it anymore than you do BUT there is NO legal definition provided in the Constitution for Natural born citizen that makes it different from citizen at birth.
Yes we all think we know what they meant but thinking it does not get us anywhere is the courts.
It seems silly to have over 300 posts on Sentor Ted Cruz who is BY LAW born a US citizen but who has not even declared he would run for POTUS
He is eligible to run
whether we like it or not
and I did NOT like that vile POS 0dumbo getting away with scamming us
You do realize that the laws cited are essentially the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended and that Congressional power vis-a-vis citizenship extends to naturalization only, don’t you?
A citizen whose citizenship is dependent on statute is a naturalized citizen.
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.