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.
It’s a restatement of Amend. XIV.
He is a US citizen from birth but not a Natural Born Citizen.
You do understand that, right?
In a law which you claim is for Immigration and Naturalization only. But I would point out that that particular section of the U.S. Code is actually titled "Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth". It's Part II, § 1421 through § 1459 that are the Naturalization laws. Link
I should have been specific, 301(a)(1) is a restatement of Amend. XIV.
The issue is there is NO legal definition of Natural Born citizen
so all the whining in the world won’t change anything
I supported every single person who tried to get that scummy vile POS 0dumbo declared ineligible including that Dem Penn lawyer
and I still believe that asshole and his minions lied and cheated about it
I can’t though understand why the uproar over Senatoir Cruz. We know he isn’t hiding anything and everything about him can be and has been verified. So why all the hoopla?
According to US law and verified by documents that have been around in the public for years Senator Cruz was a US citizen at birth.
all this uproar seems silly
You can bet the dims are going to become birthers in 2015. Try to prevent Cruz from running for president.
Good point!
So INA 301(a)/8 USC § 1401(a) are simply declaratory, but (g) is an affirmative act? What about (b) through (f)--which ones are declaratory and which ones affirmative? On what basis do you make the distinction, other than your preferred outcome?
Here is what a ‘natural born Citizen’ is defined by the father of the 14th Amendment, Rep John Bingham, before Congress.
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Rafael Cruz owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named Cuba. That negates Ted Cruz from being a true natural born Citizen born within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Also you must realize that the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
“The issue is there is NO legal definition of Natural Born citizen so all the whining in the world won’t change anything”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. Cruz knows this. That is why he doesn’t officially acknowledge he is a Article 2 Section 1 ‘natural born Citizen’ but rather a ‘U.S. Citizen’.
A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states:
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth”.
Do You Col Case really think that IF ( and this is what is amazing to me, this is a HUGE IF yet you seem consumed by something that might not happen)
but IF Senator Cruz decides to run he would be ruled ineligible?
Jack Maskall’s Congressional Research Service (CRS) memo to Congress was dissected and was found to be filled with tons of obfuscations to case law and statutes in order to cover for Obama. It was a highly flawed deceptive memo. But to answer your question about Cruz being ruled ineligible, I hope he is because he is not eligible. 8 USC 1401 does not define natural born Citizen but rather Citizens and nationals.
“A citizen whose citizenship is dependent on statute is a naturalized citizen.”
A Citizen of the United States At Birth is NOT a naturalized citizen. If a person qualifies for that status, they are also a natural born citizen.
Citizenship statutes in the U.S. Code of Laws further define and illuminate the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. There is no definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution. We are reliant on statutory law and case law for that definition.
Realistically why would Cruz be declared ineligible if 0dumbo was not?
For one, Obama had the liberal media in the tank for him and they covered up from the beginning any mention of the fact that his father made Obama a dual Citizen and the fact that Obama’s campaing website stated he was a ‘native citizen’ instead of a natural born Citizen. Not one reporter during the 08 election asked Obama to his face if he was a natural born Citizen or questioned him personally about his British Citizenship given to him by the British Act of 1948. Not one. Not one reporter questioned him about his Connecticut SS number when he never lived in Connecticut. Enter Ted Cruz. Now we have major networks and reporter asking Cruz to his face about if he is eligible or not. That was never done with Obama. Cruz citizenship is mainstream in the media like McCains was. Obama’s was not. All eligibility cases against Obama were never reported by the media to the public during the litigation process. They only reported the cases after the judge had ruled the cases moot or frivolous. See the double standard?
Also ALL the judges have been on Obama’s side making bogus judgements in favor of him twisting case law to make him eligible. Their written rulings have been laced with unethical responses trashing the plantiffs challenging Obama. I’ve sure you have read some. I don’t believe they would be so kind to Cruz as would the Secretary of States who would most likely investigate him if a ballot challenge was issued by a democrat plantiff.
Like every presidential election, candidate qualifications will be determined by the voters and their electors. The Constitutional standard is that a candidate be 35 years old, a resident of the US for 14 years and be a natural born citizen. The Constitution requires that the president be selected by the voters and a majority of their electors. Both voters and their electors are obliged to vote only for eligible candidates and they must determine eligibility as part of their constitutional function to select the president.
So, if there are people who believe that Cruz is not eligible for any reason, those people should make their pitch to the voters and their electors. If Cruz is then selected by a majority of the electors, that then is the end of the matter.
All else is baloney.
Ted Cruz - 2016
Your response is consistent with the judicial doctrine of “political question.”
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress’ procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
The definition of NBC was clear and commonly understood without the need of legal codification until 0thugga was waiting in the wings.
Then all of a sudden people got “confused” and since then, agents of the leftist have continually sowed confusion. In civics and citizenship classes until quite recently, it was always taught that a NBC is one born on US soil to 2 citizen parents.
Just like there was no need of legal clarification of what “marriage” meant until the perverts wanted to change it. It IS what it is. Until the commies/perverts want to pull the wool over our eyes and turn the world into Hell.
The only “uproar” about Cruz is from leftist agents on this thread and their dupes. I respect Cruz very much and it’s too bad he’s not eligible to be pres but we also need good sound conservative and principled judges (SCOTUS!) and Senators and he’d be good at either and probably plenty of other positions. He has years ahead of him to serve his country.
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.