Posted on 08/20/2013 9:18:54 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Questions about Cruz’s eligibility have everything to do with interpretation of the law; the questions about Obama’s eligibility had everything to do with a dispute over the underlying facts — more specifically, conspiracy theories about whether the president was actually born in the United States, as he claimed, and whether he somehow forged a birth certificate that said he was born in Hawaii.
Obama was also born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, meaning if he was in fact born outside the United States, the situations might be parallel. But birthers weren’t making a legal argument about Obama; they were arguing the facts about where he was born and accusing him of perpetrating a massive fraud.
In Cruz’s case, nobody is disputing the underlying facts of the case — that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother who was a United States citizen. As we wrote back in March, that makes him a U.S. citizen himself, but it’s not 100 percent clear that that is the same thing as a “natural born citizen” — the requirement for becoming president.
Most scholars think it’s the same thing, and the Congressional Research Service said in 2011 that someone like Cruz “most likely” qualifies to run for president. But to this point, there is no final word from the courts, because while foreign-born candidates have run — including George Romney and John McCain — none of them has actually won and had his eligibility challenged.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Huh? If there is no citizenship law then there are no citizens at all. Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support.
“So what did the Supreme Court have to say about it?”
Cert. denied. They refused to hear it meaning they couldn’t get four votes out of nine to hear it.
As Justice Thomas said, the court is “evading” the NBC definition issue!
So what man-made (positive) law makes NATURAL born Citizens - citizens?
You can be born a citizen. Like the people of Puerto Rico.
And that makes you a BORN citizen - a superset of natural born citizens.
But the people of Puerto Rico need a to be citizens of the US. They are collectively naturalized. They are LEGALLY NATURALIZED citizens - though the vast majority of them have never gone through any ‘naturalization process’. The process is based on the law and the law says - born in Puerto Rico - you are collectively NATURALIZED - AT birth.
Any and all laws passed by Congress that MAKE someone a citizen are a form of naturalization. Congress is ONLY charged with laws for the NATURALIZATION of citizens. So ANY law Congress makes granting citizenship is a form of naturalization. Natural born Citizens are not citizens due to some law made up by Congress. They are - natural.
Go have a juice box, the big people are talking about the next election.
WaPo goes Birther.
That's a natural fact!
Thanks for the ping!
I am tempted to become a birther now just for fun.
Better late than never LOL
May I steal that paragraph bluecat6? Perfectly expressed, and perfectly true.
Several wondered how laws can exist that weren’t created by man, xo I returned to my little copy of that statement written by the founder of our first law school, at William and Mary in 1779, Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence. He wanted to form a government where citizens could “...assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them...” These were the rights granted by God - by Nature.
Jefferson’s principal source was Vattel’s “The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns.” For Jefferson, and many if not most philosophers of the enlightenment, the Law of Nature - Natural Law - was God given. There were many other interpreters of Natural Law, Grotius, Pufendorf, Liebniz, Wolff... but Vattel was so well organized and clearly written that Jefferson made it the first, and by far the most cited, legal text in the U.S.. When Jefferson’s library was audited after his death there were three copies of Law of nations.
Some people ‘round need to have their diapers changed and then be put down for a nap.
I like to sneak itching power in their diapers.
Please steal and propagate away.
It is time that we teach ourselves and our children about our country’s foundations. And why and how they came to be.
This ongoing argument about the ‘term’ that is that not really a term but just three simple words made up of 2 adjectives and on proper noun is simply insane at this point.
Obama, Cruze, Rubio, Jindal - they do not make the cut. All of them had foreign national father at the time of birth. They are not ‘natural’ Citizens - even if they were ‘born’ citizens.
McCann? At least he had 2 citizen parentS. Unfortunately, the issue of jus soli - which between 1790 and 1795 was not an issue apparently creates the grey area.
Tonight on Hannity Mark Levine was on. He was claiming Cruz was eligible and this all crazy talk - basically pre-labelling anyone challenging Cruz’s eligibility a birther. And coward Hannity was right with him. They are just tools.
They want who they want and the Constitution and its reason and meaning - be damned.
Here it is again:
“Any and all laws passed by Congress that MAKE someone a citizen are a form of naturalization. Congress is ONLY charged with laws for the NATURALIZATION of citizens. So ANY law Congress makes granting citizenship is a form of naturalization. Natural born Citizens are not citizens due to some law made up by Congress. They are - natural.”
Thanks for this post.
No one on earth in any age will question that a child born on the soil of a country of parents who are citizens of that country, is a citizen of that country as well.
Levin's three hour programs are like those paid advertisements for vitamins. He sells his own books, which have done quite well. Because Levin's legal group depends upon Republicans for business, and Republicans are complicit in - the thick of - obfuscation of the abundant documentation of the ‘our common-law and language familiar to the framers’, floating only naturalized citizens to oppose Hillary in 2016, his allegiance is explained as Occam's choice. His clarifications about law are a function of the sources of his income.
seriously, both of these fellows have been out to lunch on the eligibility issue and have never been heard to utter the words, "Sheriff Joe ..."
Do not disagree at all.
Why fight the Constitution when you can just ignore it?
No one in the Belt-way likes that bothersome document anyway.
To bad for us, the people. If a Constitutional Republic discards is Constitution - what is its foundation? We seem destined to become just like Rome.
“No one on earth in any age will question that a child born on the soil of a country of parents who are citizens of that country, is a citizen of that country as well.”
_________________________________________________
And this concept was captured by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett.
“..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...”
And back to that pesky document called the Constitution:
Here is what power it gives Congress when it comes to citizenship:
“The Congress shall have Power .... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
Any law by Congress dealing with citizenship qualification must a ‘naturalization law’. Because that is the only power granted to Congress concerning citizenship in the Constitution.
If you are not natural, then you are naturalized since NATURALIZATION laws is all Congress is empowered to do.
And naturalization does not require anything but - a law.
No process, no forms...
Look at the citizens of Peurto Rico. They are US citizens at birth. No process, no forms, no paperwork. They are collectively naturalized - via a law. Their Puerto Rico birth certificate is all they need for paperwork.
Law of Congress = Naturalized status (and thus not natural born).
The 14th Amendment does actually create a new path to citizenship. It is not a ‘naturalization’ law since it did not originate with Congress. It is a Constitutional article that grants citizenship. But it never attempts to modify or change what ‘natural born’ means, implies or how it is used in Article II, Section 1.
That’s if you assume his mythical life is the real one.
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.