Posted on 08/13/2013 3:12:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Via Mediaite and MFP, forget the legal niceties about what “natural born” might or should mean and look at this from a court’s perspective. Realistically, no judge is going to disqualify a national figure who stands a real chance of being the nominee of one of the two major parties unless the law leaves them no wiggle room to rule otherwise. Tens of millions of Americans would be willing to vote for Ted Cruz; to strike him from the ballot on a technicality in an ambiguous case would be momentously undemocratic. Against that backdrop, the Supreme Court would almost certainly end up reading “natural born” in the narrowest way, excluding anyone who was born abroad of two non-citizen parents but including everyone else. Cruz, who was born in Canada but whose mother was a U.S. citizen, would qualify, not only for the reason Ace gives here but more broadly because courts don’t want to be seen as hard-ass enforcers of what’s perceived by many to be an unusually archaic bit of the Constitution. They’ll dump a true foreigner because they have to. They don’t have to dump the son of an American citizen like Cruz, so they won’t. Take it to the bank.
But never mind that. Given the angst and ambiguity over the “natural born” clause in the last two cycles, why not pass an amendment to replace it with something like, say, a 25-year residency requirement? The point of the clause was to make sure that rich foreigners couldn’t cross the ocean and buy their way into the presidency, which wasn’t a baseless concern for a group of former British subjects who worried about loyalists to the throne subverting the revolution. In practice, though, it means that someone who’s born on U.S. soil but lives their entire life abroad, only to return and run for president decades later, is constitutionally more trustworthy than someone like Cruz who was born abroad but has lived his entire life here. Does anyone question whether Ted Cruz, decades later, might be more loyal to Canada than to the U.S.? Right at this moment, House Republicans are gearing up to pass a variation of the DREAM Act that would grant citizenship to illegals who were brought here at a young age by their parents on the theory that the place where you’re raised is more likely to shape your patriotic loyalty than the happenstance of your birth. If those kids are trustworthy enough to help decide at the polls who the president should be, why shouldn’t they be eligible for the presidency themselves? In a democracy, the president is, or should be, drawn from the citizenry. People who take certain draconian disqualifying actions, like committing felonies, are an exception, but what action has Cruz taken? Replace “natural born” with a residency requirement, which gives people the power to prove their loyalty, and you solve that problem.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
YOU LIE!
Both of Marco Rubio's parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his birth. That is a FACT.
They wouldn't. That's where the term "concern troll" comes from. See "JW"'s anti-birtherism rants as prime exhibits.
(Hope I haven't now called the demon via some arcane summoning text)
I just want the truth, no matter the consequences. This Game of Thrones shell game bs sucks.
What matters is how US law reads. The US law is a fact. Fight with that all you want, and at the end of the day it will still be US law. Cruz, by US law, was born an automatic US citizen. That makes him eligible, by US law, for the presidency.
If there were a law to the contrary, I’m sure you’d be citing it.
I’ve got to again disagree, Spaulding. The US constitution gives the Congress the authority to makes all necessary law to accomplish the powers given them under the constitution. To enact a uniform rule of naturalization, they had to pass law on who needs to be naturalized, and that means they required law on who is a born US citizen and who is not. The law of our constitutionally elected congress says that Ted Cruz was born a US citizen. There’s really no arguing on it other than as a philosophical discourse. The law is what it is.
If you have another law to the contrary, please post it.
No, it’s entirely logical since the Constitution gives congress the authority to “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. “
So, to rule on who needed to be naturalized, it was necessary to rule on who didn’t. Congress has ruled by law, it is the law currently in use, and we can complain til we’re blue in the face, but it is still the law that will be used.
Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] (a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
First, English common law was used by the States, not the federal government. That's why one of the sections contained in the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification was entitled:
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
It's by George Tucker, and can be found here
**
Secondly, Tucker states:
But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government, a much wider field for investigation is thereby opened; of the importance of which, the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents.
"It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers."
**
Third, it was NOT 'English common law at the time'. What Blackstone actually said was natural borns were born within the ALLEGIENCE of the King.
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
-----
His father had renounced allegiance to Cuba and was seeking American citizenship.
I have seen no evidence of Cruz's fathers' renunciation of Cuban citizenship. If you have such evidence, please provide it.
While he could have done so, it would have left him as a man without a country. Natural-born Citizenship can't be 'assumed' or bestowed onto a foreign national by the federal authority, as they have only the authority to make a uniform Rule for Naturalization. Thus all the federal authority CAN determine are NATURALIZED citizens.
Citizenship occurs at the State level. The Founders created it this way, followed these rules of legal procedure themselves, and they knew government didn't have the legal ability to CREATE natural-born citizens. They only gave themselves the privileges, immunities OF natural-born citizens.
November 22, 1788
……andPhillip Theobald & John de Polerisky, upon taking the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth before two Justices of the Peace, & paying to the Secretary the fee in such case required, shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born Citizens.
Acts and Resolves of Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court of Massachusetts
Page 39
Anyone not following this procedure were deemed 'aliens'.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens. The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record, and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar.
Thomas Jefferson , A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth, May 1779
Already existing children would became naturalized at the same time through a process known as derivation.
Any children born AFTER the legal procedure of naturalization would then be natural-born citizens.
-----
The point was loyalty -- not a document.
What an emotive statement. To question Cruz's eligibility is to question his loyalty?
What a liberalized pant-load.
LOL!
Apparently not!
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
I’ve already cited it. You’ve simply dismissed evidence that refutes your argument. I’m not quite sure why you persist.
He’s a Canadian citizen with divided loyalties. He is not and never will be a natural born American Citizen.
“I just read one poster say that Canadian law doesn’t permit anchor babies to be Canadian citizens, so his birth there to foreign citizens didn’t make him a Canadian citizen.”
Incorrect:
From http://www.capitalnews.ca/index.php/news/citizenship comes this:
“As [British Columbia immigration lawyer Steven] Meurrens points out, Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s regulations state that entering Canada for the purpose of giving birth is not a barrier to entry and Canadians should take pride in the fact the country allows birthright citizenship.”
Born on Canadian soil = Canadian citizen.
“That is irrelevant to me, however. US law says he’s automatically a US citizen at birth.”
You are correct, he is a citizen by law, but not a natural born citizen which is required to be President of the US. You can’t make a natural born citizen by law.
With a Cuban father and being born on Canadian Soil to an American mother makes Cruz a triple-citizen, subject to the laws of all three countries - unless of course, he has formally renounced his Cuban and Canadian citizenships.
He was born a US citizen by law. The law is a fact. It IS the way this will be decided. However, philosophizing is always fun.
Does this give Congress the power to redefine the word "Arms" to mean slingshots? After all, if they are all powerful, not a word in the constitution cannot be redefined to suit them.
I personally believe Congress cannot redefine words in the US Constitution by passing a law. If we allow them to change the meanings, their power is unlimited.
As I’ve stated any number of times on this thread, this will be decided based on US law. Cruz was born a US citizen. By US law he’s eligible for the presidency.
Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. By law, a fact, Cruz was born a US citizen and will run for the presidency (if he decides to run). It will be perfectly legal.
Their laws allow for such chicanery, and most people are simply unaware that Hawaii's laws allow this loophole by design.
Actually, a born citizen is what a country’s laws says it is.
Watch and see. He’ll run. It will be legal.
You are too limited in you view. There is a simplier and less costly way. The liberals have been doing it for years. Simply denounce, criticize, and derogate the existing structure, and create the public meme that it is faulty and in need of repair.
Over time, the meme will do it's job. The good news is that this is pretty much true of our defective court system. It has long been nonsensical.
The blind adherence to "Precedent", for example, makes a methodology out of a fallacy. (Tu quoque, or put another way, Compounding errors.)
Nowadays, the terms "Legal" or "court" ought to be the subjects of derision.
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”.
I would contend we need to repair and revitalize our constitutional system, not denounce, criticize and tear it down farther.
Your approach is indeed logical, if your goal is simply to be “agin” something, as it at root is for liberals.
But destroying what is left of the American constitutional system does not necessarily mean it will be replaced by something better. Historical precedent is quite to the contrary.
However, I quite agree that our present legal and political system is not deserving of much respect and has little inherent legitimacy.
IOW, I generally agree with your premises but disagree with your conclusions.
Maybe so for most countries, but a "natural born citizen" has a specific meaning that is not alterable by law in THIS nation.
Watch and see. He’ll run. It will be legal.
This is what is known as a non sequitur. The one thing doesn't prove the other. We are so deep in the twilight zone now that "legal" is proof of nothing. Ever hear of Obamacare? And here we all thought slavery had been made illegal.
“Cruz was born a US citizen.”
You keep using the word “citizen” when no one is arguing with you that Cruz is a US “CITIZEN”.
What you don’t seem to grasp, is that he is not a “natural born citizen.” There is a difference, regardless of whether you want there to be or not.
A child born in the US to US Citizen parents can’t be anything but a US Citizen - i.e. “natural born.”
A child born in the US to a foreign father and American mother, or foreign mother and American father, is, at best, a dual-citizen (US and the foreign parent’s country) and subject to the laws of both countries.
Both of these children are US citizens, but only one is eligible to be President.
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.