Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
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.
**snip**
This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.
As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, it probably never will.
The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.” **snip**
want to go on record again objecting to the term “birther.” If the term were confined to conspiracy theorists, that would be one thing. But it has become a tool to shut down even legitimate debate.
The term was used as a pejorative as part of a deliberate Obama campaign strategy to shut down debate on his issues **snip**
5. The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant **snip**
6. “natural born Citizen” usage at the time of drafting the Constitution is uncertain **snip**
7. British common and statutory law doesn’t solve the problem **snip**
8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
Oh they'll have no problem making it the most important issue on the table as soon as it suits them politically.
There is no such thing as “too early”, our enemies are planning their victory this very minute. 2016 began the moment Romney lost.
Respect your wishes???
How can I respect anything when you are flip floppping all over the map here.
Am I wrong, or were you against Cruz being prez material based on the NBC clause.
Now that I made my arguments - you appear to SUPPORT Cruz in spite of the NBC clause.
Feel free to not respond to this post. But I leave here knowing I accomplished something; I enlightened someone today who erroneously thought Cruz could not be qualified to serve as president.
Good for me.
“you are flip floppping all over the map here.”
No. My position of the issue has not changed. I have not “flip flopped” on anything. The only thing that has changed is that I no longer wish to discuss the matter on FR, because the site owner does not want his site to be used to say the things I would say.
Well since he IS a natural born citizen as the term is understood by 99% of people of that aren’t fruit loops.
The other 2 requirements are
35 years old
Lived in the US for at least fourteen years.
So there’s your answer. In your fictional scenario where he is “raised in Canada” he’s still legally eligible as long as he’s been a US resident for 14 years prior to Jan 20th 2016.
Now if you’re really asking would I WANT some (natural born) American citizen who’s spent half his life living in another country to be President and consider that person “fully American”, maybe not. My wants would not effect that person’s eligibility.
And that person is NOT Ted Cruz, the fact that Ted Cruz learned to go potty in Canada means JACK SQUAT, legally, morally, or in any other way.
Jan 20th 2017, I meant.
You might want to knock it off.
/johnny
Yes that Herb Titus, a well respected Constitutional attorney with impeccable credentials. Titus in the article is right. You see, persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.
ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
:-)
Titus: What’s important is to realize that being a natural born citizen is based upon the law of nature. Any natural law is based on a law of nature which is revealed by God. And the notion is that no one is accidentally born in any particular nation to any particular parent. You’re not born by accident, you’re born by design. And who’s the designer? Well, God’s the designer. So if you’re born of two parents, that is a mother and father, who are of the same citizenship, then you have been ordained by God to be a citizen of the nation of your parents. That’s why he’s a natural born citizen. So, there’s a design in this that goes all the way back to scriptural principles.
Interesting legal theory.
If this guy was the point man for the birther legal team, it is no wonder they lost every case they brought.
Actually - No.
I told sourcery not to respond to me. He does anyway.
If this guy was the point man for the birther legal team, it is no wonder they lost every case they brought.”
Wrong. The courts were corrupt covering for a usurper. Titus totally destroys Mr. Jacobson’s flawed opinion in the most easy to understand simplistic terms in 6 minutes.
Here are educational eligibility facts for the presidency. Read up.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Since when are they NOT hypocritical? :p
Indeed, maybe that’s what “natural born” really means. ;-D
I agree. Great article.
You said no such thing. What you said was "Feel free to not respond to this post."
Did you actually READ Mr. Jacobson's "flawed" opinion?
And so the purge has started already.....
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.