Posted on 08/13/2013 3:12:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Oh I have. I too originally assumed Cruz was not NBC, like some others.
Then after researching the matter, it is clearly:
Natural Born Citizen includes a child of a legal US citizen born beyond the US borders. It only requires one parent citizen, not both. Birthright laws in the actual country of birth does not affect US NBC status.
“Then after researching the matter...”
Can you please share your research with us, because we’ve also seen research leaning the other way? I think we all need to see what led you to this conclusion.
The rocks fall down the mountain, not up. I think it is going down whether we like it or not.
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.
Our court system lost its constitutional moorings when Roosevelt and Truman appointed Kook liberal judges for 20 years straight. These judges affected how the law schools taught, because you have to teach kook law when you have to appear before kook law judges. Now the whole system is infected with this disease.
"Living constitution" (Meaning rubber band constitution) has replaced strict constructionist. The disease is winning, and it appears that it will eventually kill the patient. A society simply cannot survive all of the necessary pieces of social structure which the courts have destroyed over the years.
However, I quite agree that our present legal and political system is not deserving of much respect and has little inherent legitimacy.
This is what most conservatives believe. We've seen too many cases of upside down irrational logic being asserted as "the law." (Wickard, Kelo, Roe, Lawrence, and lately Obamacare.) I hate to be a pessimist, but I regard the sickness of the court system to be a manifestation of a larger overall sickness of society.
IOW, I generally agree with your premises but disagree with your conclusions.
I would love to be persuaded that I am wrong, because hope is a lot more pleasant than is pessimism.
When I have some free time I will dig it up.
In the mean-time, from another thread today......”For the record, CNN said every constitutional law expert they interviewed for said Cruz is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president.”
We explicitly rejected English Common law as governing citizenship by breaking it when we expatriated ourselves. English law holds that allegiance is perpetual. I'm thinking we should not be invoking the principles of a law we so blatantly rebuked.
That being said, if his father had renounced allegiance to Cuba, and was actually SEEKING American citizenship, i'd give him a pass. This comports with my understanding of how the Founders dealt with such issues. Residency, and intent to become a citizen was an oft cited criteria.
But it is my understanding, that this is not the case. His father didn't become a Citizen until 2005. This is well past any reasonable understanding of the "intending to be a citizen" claim. It ought to have been in the 1960s to have been a credible argument.
But i'll vote for him anyway. The rules simply don't matter any more.
According to the ENGLISH Version of Natural law, Because Ted Cruz is born in Canada, he owes his allegiance to Canada. According to the VATTEL version of Natural law, Because Ted Cruz's father was Cuban at the time of his birth, he owes his allegiance to Cuba.
So where would "natural law" support the argument that he is a "natural born" American? The Naturalization law under which he acquires citizenship was an artifact of 1934, not 1787. It was a gift from Congress, not a manifestation of "natural law."
I suspect it's just camouflage. Generally, it is the establishment types that are so bound and determined to argue Obama's legitimacy, and they HATE Sarah Palin.
If he is as he says, he's a PECULIAR sort of critter. An Obama Defending, Legal system Defending supporter of Sarah Palin.
Agreed. Vattel noted that those in foreign lands in the service of their nation cannot be regarded as having left their country. (In the sense of Allegiance.) Their children are natural born citizens.
The issue is not with Canadian laws, it is with ours. Cruz is a citizen by virtue of a law that did not exist in 1787.
You can't change the meaning of the words after the ink has dried.
You are using CNN as an authority on the matter? Really?
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
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 Biggest Cover-up in American History
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
You put far too much faith in the competence of our legal process. The reason we got the correct decision was because we got sensible judges instead of liberal kooks. Had the court been full of Liberal Kooks as it had been most years since Roosevelt, it would have gone the other way.
My point is this. Legal decisions by the Supreme court often have more to do with the Judge's personal preferences than they have to do with a correct understanding of the law.
Until enough Supreme Court justices have the courage to take on this case, and competent plaintiffs present it (unlike the circus in GA), this case will not be heard on the merits.
Until a sufficient number of thoughtful and competent judges are in place, this case will not be heard on the merits. So many judges are brainwashed by their legal training that they will reject contrary evidence without even considering it.
N-a-t-u-r-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n. Making something "natural born" is not within their power. They can perform adoptions, but they can't make actual blood relatives.
Given what passes for the law these days, i'm not sure the armchair hypothesizers could do any worse than the "professionals." Wickard, Kelo, Roe, Lawrence, Obamacare etc. ?
Yeah, the "professionals" have made a muck of it.
Sometimes you need to research the right sources before setting your mind on accepting a false authority.
I've researched this quite a lot with founding era documents. I'll note right off the bat, that the first "natural born" President was Martin Van Buren. He was born in 1782, making him the FIRST President born after the Declaration of Independence. He was elected in 1836, so there was an interval of 60 years in which the term "Natural born citizen" didn't apply to the Presidency.
Why is this relevant? It points out the fact that for 60 years nobody paid any attention to the "natural born citizen" requirement, because all previous Presidents were grandfathered in. During this time, the accurate meaning of the term was distorted by deliberate misrepresentation from William Rawle and others.
At the time William Rawle began his deliberate misrepresentation, most of the people who could challenge him on the issue were already dead. His book (A View of the Constitution) became very popular, and as a result of his book and often repeated misapplied notion that we followed English law in everything, a lot of people became convinced that mere birth on the soil is all that is necessary to be a "natural born citizen."
And for the first sixty years, the point didn't really matter. That's another reason why people forgot the correct meaning.
Why did Rawle deliberately misrepresent the meaning of "natural born citizen"? He was attempting to use the English law rule to assert citizenship for slaves. Rawle was a dedicated abolitionist who filed lawsuits to end slavery and who was also the President of the Pennsylvania abolition society.
Rawle NEEDED and fervently desired that the English law be the rule, so he just wrote that it was. Other British trained lawyers agreed with him, and that's how we got so much confusion on the issue.
But people in a position to KNOW the correct answer,(Delegates who debated the matter) tend to quote Vattel or apply the same principle in their own words.
And at this point, I wouldn't care if he was. That backstabbing us on illegal immigration is a deal killer for me. Immigration? Yes. Illegal immigration? No.
It's not fair to other immigrants to let illegals just walk across our borders and claim citizenship. Knock on our front door, don't sneak in through our back door.
One parent of SUFFICIENT AGE. If you are going to cite conditional citizenship, you need to mention THE CONDITIONS.
If Ted Cruz's mother wasn't old enough, Ted wouldn't be a citizen.
I personally think it's ridiculous to claim that a mother's age makes the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen, but that is how the law stands.
So if Ted Cruz's mother hadn't met the age requirement, would you still think Ted was a "natural born" citizen?
I don't think anyone bothers to read it.
At this point, Thank God! It would just be another mess of Liberal states to contend with. I actually wish we could SHRINK the country by throwing out the Liberal States.
I just knew that was going to be the punchline. :)
They were Naturalized in 1934, Before they were born. It was a blanket naturalization. It even uses the word "Naturalization" in the law.
You are mistaking the fact that they didn't have to go through a PROCESS as meaning they aren't naturalized. Well, the CHILDREN of Immigrants who acquire American citizenship also don't go through a process. The ADULTS do, but the Children don't. This is called "derivative" citizenship. Their citizenship (which is created by naturalization) is derived from their parent's naturalization.
So the fact that there is no PROCESS is immaterial to the fact that they are NATURALIZED citizens.
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.