Natural Born Citizen of how many countries?
This is good news and it also signals he is going to run, and I support his running. He just better make Sarah Palin SECDEF and then I can be at peace. But I digress.
There is no question that Cruz is a ‘Citizen By Birth’; not even an iota of doubt. He has immediately released his long form birth certificate and just to be clear and open he renounces any possible citizenship he has with Canada where he was born. Already then he is orders of magnitude more transparent than the current occupant of the White House.
But is he a Natural Born Citizen? We know that this term is different than just ‘Citizen By Birth’ and we know ‘Citizen by Naturalization’ is different in meaning as well.
Why did the Framers write:
“No Person except a ***natural born Citizen***, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
and call out this distinction that was never set out for any other officeholder except President? Many say they were vague but I don’t believe it. They knew exactly what it meant.
NBC had its meaning well understood in English Common Law which was used by the colonialist governments hundreds of years before the establishment of the United States. Their aim was to discourage, actually prevent dual allegiance. Many Americans at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were still in allegiance to the Crown or to other foreign powers such as Spain or France. The Framers wanted future presidents to be born of two citizen parents on soil that was under the jurisdiction of the United States or of citizen parents that were possibly transiting in territories not under US jurisdiction such as the Louisiana territory when it was held by the French. Even in the case of Texas when it was an independent republic, a child born there would not be a natural born citizen.
At the time the Framers wrote NBC into the Constitution there was no dual citizenship. A person held allegiance to one flag and one flag only unless they were without a country.
No, the Framers were not vague in their understanding or their writing, they knew. But now many of us do not know because the meaning has been buried for so long. We have a sense that they wanted only people who were born of two citizens domiciled on US soil or territory. (Look up ‘domiciled’ as it is different than residence.)
And Americans haven’t paid much attention if any to the meaning with exception of brief commentary regarding President Chester Authur in the 1880s.
Enter Barack Obama. For the first time observer he appeared as an intelligent and ‘clean’ black like candidate that many swooned would show how marvelous America could be in choosing a person of any ethnic or cultural background for its leader. Obama’s opposition were shocked when they found out about his longtime preacher shouting “God D*mn America!”. But the issue was swept under. People worried about Obama’s allegiance to Muslims, to people like Louis Farrakhan and to the Muslim Brotherhood. Somehow the nation had survived the Clintons and these concerns about Obama seemed unsubstantial.
And for many Americans the jury is still out with respect to Obama’s allegiances. We know now he most definitely is alligned with Muslim interests and radical ones at that given his current support for the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
So we have now a group called ‘Birthers’ and some of them have been quite articulate in reminding us of the historical meaning and intention of the term NBC versus simply Citizen by Birth.
Where does that leave us with Cruz?
As conservatives, we love this man. Nearly every expression he utters resonates with our deeply held traditional beliefs and love for America.
Now I know that many who will back Cruz will argue ad nauseum the nuances of US Statutes in defining the various classifications, requirements and definitions of citizenship and they will make some sort of shoehorn fit to get Cruz into the NBC category.
But such a shoehorn fit is not a satisfactory resolution nor will be any resolution taken up inside that country club of good old boys and gals known as the US Senate as was done for the brain damaged Senator from Arizona.
Mark Levin commented on a recent show about what he thinks of ‘Birthers’ and it is not good. He thinks they are obsessed. He thinks Birther talk about Cruz is crazy.
No Mark, it is not crazy. It is necessary. And as you go about promoting your new book which appears wonderful and timely and (patting myself on the back) with prodding from people like yours truly (he was at one time against an Article V movement), I think you should support an Article V amendment to settle the question of NBC once and for all and also the question of allegiance to no other foreign power be it a recognized nation, or a religious or political movement that seeks to overthrow the Constitution. For example, allegiance to the goal of imposing Sharia Law as the law of the land in the United States would be grounds for disqualification.
Let’s not gloss over this. Levin is our point man. Let him take the lead in hashing this over.
If he is not eligible, just get Roberts to declare his birth certificate a “tax” and therefore declare him eligible.
.
.
- Who cares about Barack “Dogmeat” Hussein-Obama (Junior) anyway -
- ...”maybe a little blow”... is tattoed on his forehead
- ...”unfit to be a Rodeo Clown”... aptly describes Homo Electus
.
.
The international status of a foreign born child of a US citizen may differ depending upon treaty.
That person may visit a country with which the US has secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings without fear of claims upon him by the foreign country.
That same person may visit a country with which the US has not secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings but at the risk of claims upon him by the foreign country.
While this person’s domestic status is the same, his international status depends upon treaty.
A “natural born citizen” - a person born within the US with parental US citizenship - has no such risk. His domestic and international status is always the same, without any dependency upon law or treaty, no other nation may make any claim upon this person.
Can a person who’s international status is dependent upon law or treaty be said to be a “natural born citizen”?
I like Cruz a lot, but I have no use for people holding dual citizenships. Canada. Israel. Wherever. It’s B.S. Pick a country, be a citizen there, and live there. We don’t need any half-assed Americans running for president; we have one now.
I once had dual US/Chilean citizenship. Boy, I wish I’d kept it!