Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?
If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
Correct.
From Mich Law Review:
On the other hand, the language of the 1790 Act might be interpreted differently. The statute is not explicitly phrased in declaratory terms: The phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens” might have reflected the understanding that the children of American citizens on foreign soil were not actually “natural born,” but could be treated as if they were by granting them a legal status that was otherwise identical to that held by those who were “natural born.” On this interpretation, McCain would not qualify as a natural born citizen even if a statute had conferred citizenship upon him at birth. Such a conclusion is based on the conventional and widely shared assumption that Congress lacks power to alter the meaning of the Constitution through legislation.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/originalism-and-the-natural-born-citizen-clause
The very fact that the legislature in 1790 felt the need to pass a statute saying that a person born on foreign soil “shall be considered as natural born...” shows that that person IS NOT a natural born citizen in the Constitutional sense.
Any citizen could be a candidate for the presidency if they were a citizen prior to the adoption of the Constitution. After their number passed away, the requirement was to be a natural born citizen. In the first case, citizens by any method were eligible for those early presidencies.
The naturalization law of 1790 by the people who had just written the Constitution said that those born overseas to US parents were “natural born citizens”. “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
So, this means that those folks who wrote the constitution saw no problem with Congress needing to define citizenship as a result of defining naturalization. They had authority to do so based on the last paragraph of article 1, section 8.
During the time the constitution was being drafted, there were many such people living here who either their mother or father were subjects of King George. That is why Article 2 Section 1 makes a clear distinction between an ordinary citizen who is not now qualified to be president and a Natural Born Citizen who is.
Also note that the constitution did in fact allow a non natural born citizen to serve as president but only during the adoption of the constitution. This is because the first generation of citizens had at least one parent who was born outside our soil. But After that, in order to be eligible to hold the office, ALL people who wish to serve as president must be born on us soil of two citizen parents.
Beat me to it!
I just pulled up Volume 1 of the United States Statutes at large to read the actual act, and it confirms what you said.
“the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”
Interesting, no?
No doubt when they said “children of citizens”, they meant exactly that, citizens IN THE PLURAL SENSE!!
I do not understand your logic... Read the Constitution.... the fact that there is a clear distinction between a regular citizen and a natural born citizen is right there in article 2 section 1 clause 5.
Educate yourself!!!!
They wrote the "Naturalization Act of 1790". One part of that Naturalization Act, written by those same folks who adopted the constitution 3 years earlier said:
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
This says that if you are a citizen and you are overseas for some reason and your child is born, that your child is a citizen. Note the exception -- If the FATHER has never lived in the US, then that child can't be a citizen.
Now, if the FATHER has been a resident citizen and the MOTHER has not ever been a resident of the US, is that child a citizen? By this law, YES.
So, both parents did not have to be citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen.
We would rant and rave in our day how that's patriarchal, sexist, unequal, etc., etc., but THAT is what those who were just 3 years away from the ratification of the Constitution made the law to be in their day.
If you are BORN a citizen, automatically a citizen by birth, then what other kind of citizenship is there?
You aren’t a naturalized citizen. So what are you?
The naturalization act of 1790, written by those who participated in the ratification of the US Constitution 3 years earlier, says that you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
So, who knew the definition of what THEY meant by “natural born citizen”....you or them?
Okay, I can see how some could take the position that children of 2 citizen parents, both mother and father born outside our soil could be considered natural born.... However, that does not include Obama who I dislike immensely and Cruz who I love.
§ 301 is within Title III, Chapter 1, Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization
§ 301(a)
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian... tribe
(3)(4)(7) born outside the US and outlying possession
(5) born in outlying possession
(6) foundling
301(a)(1) is a restatement of Amend XIV § 1 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".
301(a)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) collectively naturalize other persons
Cruz is in the class of persons collectively naturalized by 301(a)(7)
Cruz is not “automatically a citizen by birth”. He is a citizen AT birth BY operation of law.
That law of 1790 DID include as natural born citizens those whose fathers were citizens and whose mothers were not. More importantly, it says that CONGRESS was in charge of the decision, and constitutionally so.
And you know who was president 3 years after the ratification of our Constitution and who signed that law of 1790?
Sorry, Ray, but Cruz is one is a national at birth. The collective naturalizations dealt with COLLECTIONS, that is entire groups of people born in US lands other than the states of the union.
He was BORN a US citizen.
That just the way it is.
He was born a citizen just like you (an assumption on my part. I assume you were born a citizen, because odds are that is the case.)
Ray, you have a good night. It’s getting real close to my time to hang it up and try to sleep.
So Sorry, even under your position... neither Cruz nor Obummer are natural Born citizens because both their fathers were NOT citizens at the time they were born.
That is a ridiculous assertion. By your assertion persons born in US lands other than states are collectively naturalized, and persons born outside the US are nationals.
Cruz is a member of a class of persons - a COLLECTION - collectively naturalized by § 301(a)(7) "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States...." This does not pertain to an individual but to a collection of individuals.
Here is the link one more time, go to page 236: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation2.result.STATUTE.action?statute.volume=66&statute.pageNumber=163&publication=STATUTE
.
.
- Barack Hussein Obama II is not fit to be a Rodeo Clown
.
.
Nope, that’s the law of 1790. The law’s changed since then. A number of times.
Besides, the 1790 law reads “never been resident”, that is, they never lived in the US. Cruz’s dad lived in the US a long time before he was born.
You are not making sense. The law says that the INDIVIDUAL, Ted Cruz, is a citizen by virtue of his having been born of a US mom who had lived 10 years in the US and at least 5 years after turning 14 years old.
It says the COLLECTIVE (all the people of the Virgin Islands, for example, who meet the criteria) are ALL, as a GROUP, citizens of the US.
This is not rocket science, Ray.
Cruz was BORN an automatic citizen.
Have a great night.
The quote above are your words from the previous post..... I was just saying that both Obama's and Cruz's Fathers were Non citizens so even by your argument they are not Natural Born. Then you move the goal posts.
I am not a constitutional scholar but I can read. I understand the intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause. As I see, it makes sense and is brilliant. When I deal with people who take your position, it is as though I am dealing with an unprincipled attorney. I always go back to original intent. AND as I analyze it, I am correct..... Too bad the Supreme Court of the USA has not yet taken up this issue......
Cruz is a member of the group of persons born “outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States....”
Cruz acquired citizenship via collective naturalization by 301(a)(7).
He was not “automatically” a citizen. Where do you get this notion?
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.