Posted on 08/21/2013 8:40:51 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":
**snip
Though there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.
The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.
Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.
In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Why buy a newspaper in the US? You can get White House press releases for free and without those annoying banner ads. Here’s a link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases
I was taught the same thing in 7th grade in 1976 in Missouri. Obviously, there was a textbook somewhere that spelled it out, else how could teachers separated by decades and hundreds of miles teach that Natural Born meant born on American soil via two citizen parents? That’s proof enough for me that there exists a textbook somewhere that spells it out.
Cheers!
Agreed. It will be fun to watch the lawless twist themselves into knots over this.
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 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
The many posts of xzins, P Marlowe, and Jeff Winston are quite compelling.
You are wrong to side with the democrats, RINO's, and totalitarian MSM types who don't want to have Cruz as our president. Cruz is exactly the kind of candidate the framers would want. I hope he runs, and hope he wins.
I read the context of the cases your post cited. Your post is an exercise in shallow, intellectual dishonesty.
You have mail. Tks.
This is false. Hamilton proposed the Presidential qualification that he be a "born citizen," but this was rejected by the founders in favor of John Jay's reccommendation that the President be only a natural born citizen.
Please stop lying about our Founding Fathers.
There is. It's called "The Law of Nations," and it's by Emer de Vattel.
I am a ‘birther’ from the first days of Obama. I will stand by my ‘birther’ beliefs until someone can prove/show me that ‘birth’ has only limited relevance by our Constitution to eligibility for POTUSA. I served overseas in WWII and my only brother died on Okinawa for a ‘birthers’ take and belief in our Constitution. I had to take a graduation exam in government and Constitution from a world renowned university to get my engineering degree. I saw and learned what the Constitution meant to my Swedish born wife when she became a ‘naturalized citizen’. There are few matters of citizenship that are more dear to me than eligibility for POTUSA even though neither my brother and I were eligible because neither of our parents were citizens. I have disdain for those persons who mock ‘birthers’ such as myself. I am not swayed by their ‘shake and bake’ arguments.
As for Cruz I take him as a sincere USA patriot. The USA Government needs men of his expressions and character to undo the ill gained government by Obama and his enablers including the Congress and the Courts at all levels and a large part of the electoate. However the office of POTUSA demands the highest and severest qualifications envisioned by the Founders who had great prescience for this Nation.
Well said, the cases cited are NOT about defining natural born citizen at all.
This was the main point and intent of the Founders, they did not want a person beholden to a foreign ideology as president. Cruz passes the test with flying colors, Bambi, Biden and Hillary do not.
Of course you don't have the 'intellectual honesty' to explain your reasoning. You are such a deep thinker.
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”.
Go ahead and try and disprove the above statement. You can't.
Born in a foreign country. [1]
Born with foreign citizenship. [2]
Born owing allegiance to that foreign country. [3][4]
Born a U.S. citizen due exclusively to his mother meeting the specific requirements in the congressional law in existence at the time of his birth. [5]
Foreign born Sen. Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by congressional statute.
Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to make laws determining who may be a "natural born Citizen.
Instead of seeking the office, Sen. Ted Cruz may be trying to force the issue into the "national" debate.
And I suppose the framers would also have approved of the Kenyan?
The sworn oath is to protect and defend the Constitution. You seem to have forgotten that.
Never.
Go ahead and disprove the above statement.....
:-)
Another quote for you to disprove:
"Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law. The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do."
Of course they would have disapproved of Bambi, just as much as they would approve Cruz.
Never the less.......it was repealed. The 1790 language also stated ‘being a free white person’ were only considered natural born Citizens. I guess that is still applies too, right?
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.