Fox News' Bret Baier: Dual Citizens Can't Be President (Finally They Get It Right!)

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.” - Obama's Fight the Smears and Factheck.org.

- See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/bret-baier-reports-obama-cruz-not-eligible.html#idc-container

As to Senator Cruz, my guess is that the statute (8 U.S.C. § 1401) that defines one category of citizen of the United States at birth as: “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 who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...” will carry him to confirmation of natural born citizen status should his eligibility ever be tested in court.

Nothing in the law you cited says anything about natural-born citizenship. You're trying to connect dots that cannot legally be connected. The Wong Kim Ark decision admitted that 14th amendment did not redefine natural-born citizenship. How would a statute do so when it never uses the term??

From the Wong majority decision: [An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

This doesn't affect Cruz. His parents didn't "hath issue here."

The Wong court also held that: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’ and the Court went on to rule: “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

This means nothing because Gray already said the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Someone might be a citizen under the conditions, they aren't a natural-born citizen because it was already ruled out by the Minor citation.

“ The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Yes, the same rule about English subjects did stay in effect. It was made so by the Treaty of 1783, and it's this rule that would make Obama a natural-born subject and not a natural-born citizen. The rule is irrelevant to Ted Cruz.

And in contemporary times, 16 courts have ruled that Barack Obama is eligible as a natural born citizen and no court has ever ruled to the contrary.

And as you've shown, none of these courts provided a direct and supportable legal foundation for any claim that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Your Tisdale citation is a great example of an unsupported ruling. The closest it comes to supporting its claim is a citation of the Hollander challenge against McCain and McCain wasn't even born in the U.S.

Those sixteen court decisions that ruled Obama to be a natural born citizen because he qualified as a Citizen of the United States at Birth have not been reversed on appeal.

I expect that if there are court challenges to Senator Cruz, the courts will rule the same way due to the fact that the Senator also qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth but we will all have to wait for an actual judicial ruling on the issue.

As the Supreme Court said in Minor v. Happersett in 1874: “ADDITIONS might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
The “addition” to who qualifies as a born citizen (Citizen of the United States at Birth) that I quoted from Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) should cover Senator Cruz.
There is no court decision and no act of Congress signed into law by a president that differentiates between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States at birth.

The Founders and Framers who were also members of the first Congress did pass the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said: “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.”

Citizen of the United States at Birth have not been reversed on appeal.

Some decisions, such as administrative hearings, aren't subject to appeal, so this doesn't exactly mean anything. And some of these decisions were actually decided on procedural terms with any statements about natural-born citizenship thrown in for nothing more than show. And it doesn't mean anything anyway, because your claim is nothing more than an example of circular logic.

As the Supreme Court said in Minor v. Happersett in 1874: “ADDITIONS might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

And from here, the Minor decision proceeds to describe two classes of citizens who may be born. Only one was exclusively characterized as natural-born citizens: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. This doesn't say what you want it to say.

The “addition” to who qualifies as a born citizen (Citizen of the United States at Birth) that I quoted from Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) should cover Senator Cruz.

Not in the slightest. The court in Minor went on to explain that such statutory declarations fall under Congress' authority to adopt uniform rules of naturalization. It's probably why title 8 is labeled as "Aliens and Nationality." These are the case of aliens and foreigners who have doubts about their citizenship that must resolved. Natural-born citizens do not have these doubts.

The Founders and Framers who were also members of the first Congress did pass the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said: “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.”

Well, yes, this makes sense given the grandfather clause in Article II that allowed presidential eligibility for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. These people were "considered as" natural-born citizens even if their citizenship didn't meet the actual definition of natural-born. This makes all the more sense when the same Founders and Framers removed the "natural-born citizen" consideration a short five years later in the next naturalization act. Further, this use of natural-born citizen still hinges on being born to citizen parents, which disqualifies Cruz, who only had one citizen parent. /i

Let me clarify, its not as simple as just picking up the phone and calling the health dept.

I was trying to ascertain how the announcement for 0the got into the paper.

Possibility #1: Madelyn or Stanley Ann fill out a “home birth “ form and send it in, then the medics pass it on to the dept (health?) and from there it goes to the papers.

Possibility #2: Someone tampers with the microfilms and inserts the announcement.

Hardcopies of the paper would rule out #2, leaving #1 as a possibility.

#1 does have precedent, others have had those forms sent in and a document was then issued.
See the one for Sun Yat Sen- he was born in China but there is a Hawaii doc for him.

Most of lawsuits that I was referring to were subject to appeal and several were appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here’s the list of court rulings that held that Citizens of the United States at Birth are Natural Born Citizens as well::
Allen v. Obama, Arizona (2012)
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (2009)-appealed
Fair v. Obama, Maryland (2012)-appealed
Farrar v. Obama, Georgia (2012)-appealed to SCOTUS
Freeman v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Galasso v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
Jackson v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Paige v. Obama, Vermont (2012)-appeal pending
Powell v. Obama, Georgia (2012)-appealed
Purpura, et. al. v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)-appealed
Strunk v. N.Y. Board of Elections, New York (2012)-appealed
Swensson v. Obama, Georgia (2012)-appealed
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto), Washington, D.D. (2010)
Tisdale v. Obama, Virginia (2012)
Voeltz v. Obama, Florida (2012)-appeal pending
Welden v. Obama, Georgia (2012)-appealed to SCOTUS

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.