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 don’t believe that the Chief Justice is a part of the Judiciary? Is the Chief Justice part of the legislative branch? Does the Constitution mandate that an impeached president be subject to TRIAL in the Senate to determine guilt or innocence?
I might agree with you and I could see some judge somewhere conceivably going along with the position that Obama is not the President if he had never been sworn in, if Congress hadn’t sent him hundreds of bills to sign into law, if the Supreme Court had refused to rule on the constitutionality of his policy initiatives, if the Senate had not confirmed his cabinet and judicial nominees and finally if opposing candidates and opposing parties had filed suit challenging his eligibility.
Courts have ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible for the presidency under Article II, SECTION 1. The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to review those rulings. No court has ever ruled to the contrary.
So was Aldo Mario Bellei who had his citizenship stripped away because he didn't adhere to the law that GRANTED him citizenship. Natural citizenship isn't GRANTED by CONGRESS.
Because Congress passed a law in 1934 making such people "citizens." *IF* the mother was old enough (Mother too young? No Citizenship) and *IF* the child resides in the United States for the specified time period, (No US Residence? No Citizenship.) you could KEEP your citizenship.
This is not "Natural" citizenship, it is artificial citizenship.
He was naturalized in 1934 (en masse, and prior to the fact of his birth) when Congress, using it's power of Naturalization, created a law that thereafter "naturalized" all children born to American women who met the age and residency requirements specified in the law.
If your mother didn't meet the age and residency requirements specified, you didn't GET the citizenship.
Does this sound like "natural" citizenship to you?
When the conditions of your birth, make you a citizen, without requiring you to submit another application, you are a natural-born citizen.
All the other attempts to add additional requirements, just sound silly.
Very skewed and even perverse priorities.
People who have honor and integrity don't bend rules to favor their side.
They also don't rationalize their bending of the rules by lying to themselves.
Yes it is.
The "State Department" is not the Authority from which Constitutional Articles derive their power. Indeed, it is the State Department which obtains it's power from Constitutional articles.
Apart from that, most of these citizens to which the state department refers are only citizens because Congress created a law GRANTING them (conditional) citizenship.
This is not the same thing as having "natural" citizenship.
Natural citizens can't chose.
So was George Washington, but he WAS a "natural born subject" of King George III of England.
You can be a "citizen" without being a "natural" citizen.
I’ve traveled for work to other countries. I find the concept of my child being born a month earlier or later, corresponding to US or foreign soil, would change her status of being able to be president silly.
I find no evidence in the writing of the Founding Fathers thought that way as well. Children of ambassadors and military born overseas would have the same standings as children born in the US.
If you can show me where in the Constitution it defines Natural Born citizen, then we can hold it above the congressional law. Otherwise, the Constitution set up the powers of Congress to make applicable law.
Section 301(c) does not, and cannot re-define the meaning of "natural born citizen" as it was used in Article II of the US Constitution.
But here is the bigger point. Why would you want anyone to have the ability to re-define what the words in our constitution mean?
If you accept that constitutional meanings can be re-defined, what are you going to do when someone re-defines arms as "slingshots"?
"Section 301(c) of the Congressional Gun Control act (CGCA) defines "Arms" as any group of small rubber band powered slingshots capable of pestering people."
Changing word meanings is not so harmless is it? I urge you to think carefully about the danger of letting people change the meaning of Constitutional words.
He didn't "add" anything, it is axiomatic.
When someone says "Drive somewhere" the existence of a vehicle is inferred by the context.
The State Department works for the Constitution, not the other way around. Get your chain of authority straight first.
Second, the office of the Presidency requires a "Natural born citizen" not "a citizen."
Citizenship that was created by an act of Congress is NOT NATURAL citizenship. It cannot override or modify what the Constitution said in 1787.
Show me the original definition. Then you can claim it was redefined.
Yep, just like Natural-Born means the conditions of your birth. No additional forms or definitions were required.
Under American law, the Husband in the Marriage is the LEGAL father. The Biological father is irrelevant in this regard.
In terms of loyalty to a nation, this actually makes sense, because who but the person who raises the child will be instilling the loyalty?
Here is what a New York Presbyterian Preacher had to say bout it in 1815.
I couldn't put it better myself.
Is the Senate a part of the Judicial Branch?
I’m not speaking about Obama. I am speaking about a principle.
A court ruling re Obama has no bearing on the principle discussed.
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.