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 ...
Justice Waite:
“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 the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
Can you please provide a link?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3059031/posts?page=324#324
Apologies for the cold link. Have a nice day.
Those are false statements used as false propaganda. You simply keep ignoring tthe evidence provided to you that refutes such absurd claims. Natural born subject is not interchangeable with natural born citizen anymore than natural alien is interchangeable with natural born subject. You’re just disseminating disinformation, when it can be plainly seen by word definitions alone that a subject is not the same as a citizen.
Can you please provide a link, xzins???
I’m sorry you are clueless. Feel free to rage against everyone, since no state, no member of Congress & no court subscribes to your peculiar interpretation of the law.
I have not ignored “the evidence” Indeed, I’ve provided examples of NBC & NBS being used interchangeably, repeatedly, before and after the Constitution was written by one of the ratifying legislatures. You, OTOH, seem to have no clue about the common law used and understood by the Founders at the time.
So go on losing. But if Ted Cruz runs, FreeRepublic will stand by him while the birthers go even more bananas.
Yes, Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947-1977, and loss of citizenship happened for those naturalized in another country. Cruz Sr became a Canadian citizen prior to Ted Cruz’s birth. His mother did not.
See: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/canadian%20citizenship%20act%201946/en-en/
FWIW, the above also argues that under the law CURRENT at the time of Ted Cruz’s birth, his mother’s filling out the paperwork on Ted should have caused him to lose his Canadian citizenship.
But did his mother fill out the paperwork??? Did she fill it out after they returned to the states and after 1977???
Do you have a link where his father definitively answers these questions.
We do know that his father did not become a US citizen until 2005??? What took him so long to naturalize here???
They returned to the US in 1974. The father said he didn’t do it because he was lazy. Canadian citizenship got him all he needed here in the US pretty much, is what I figure.
I’m sure the mom filled out the paperwork because I remember reading it about a month ago. Can’t remember where, but I’d have to look it up and I’m powerwashing my studio and house here as soon as the outside temp gets above 70. It’s 67 now. That’s still cold when you’re soaking wet. LOL.
Dual citizenship might have been restricted for Canadians becoming citizens abroad but not for those abroad who came to Canada and became citizens. So Cruz would have kept his Cuban citizenship upon naturalization in Canada.
I looked at a lot of sources, UC, and it was both directions. There was even a big discussion over making it a part of the naturalization oath of allegiance.
Then there should be a link to it somewhere. Your links and others only showed one direction.
Yes it is. It's right there.
Migrants were not asked PROVE, the were only asked to renounce. In fact, current law encourages still encourages it. Says there could be problems with it.
And, of course, it's also Cruz Sr's track record. He didn't have to renounce Canadian citizenship when he took US citizenship, but he did.
Xzins,
Can you please provide a link to Cruz Sr. becoming a Canadian citizen?
Thanks.
How is the hell can that be any of your concern? What, you think he was a spy for some foreign country? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
“I’m sorry you are clueless.”
That is just your own hopelessly wishful thinking and attempt to evade the the evidence of the legal definitions I mentioned.
“Feel free to rage against everyone, since no state, no member of Congress & no court subscribes to your peculiar interpretation of the law.”
Your false accusation of “rage” is just another transparent attempt to use ridicule as a tool for discouraging readers from taking the evidence seriously, just as Saul Alinsky taught as a tactic for Marxists to bury the truth in a debate. You follow up with a plain and outright lie with the absurd claim that “no state, no member of Congress & no court subscribes to your peculiar interpretation of the law;”
Given the historical fact that the U.S. natural born citizen had the right guaranteed by the Constitution to be an infidel and not a Christian, while the infidel was forbidden the right to be a natural born subject, a status reserved only for Christians; it is therefore quite obvious that it is impossible for the U.S. Natural born citizen status to be “interchangeable” with the British natural born subject status of 1789 that required the person to be none other than a Christian in religious faith.
“How is the hell can that be any of your concern? What, you think he was a spy for some foreign country? You people should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Since you brought the subject up, you should bear the responsibility for the consequences. Yes, it is a fact readily acknowledged by Rafael Cruz that he did engage in what can be termed as espionage and/or subversive activities. The question only remains as to against whom and when those espionage and subversive activities were directed.
Rafael Cruz says he served with the clandestine pro-Castro revolutionary forces. The Communists for whom Rafael Cruz claims he was unwittingly serving say Rafael Cruz was an informer for the Batista regime spying on the pro-castro revolutionaries Cruz believed were pro-democracy forces supported by the U.S. CIA. So, whomever Rafael Cruz was serving wittingly or unwittingly, he was engaged in espionage and subversion for at least some periods of time by his own admission.
It should always be remembered how there was once a man of truly heroic accomplishment without whom the American Revolution would have failed that betrayed his friend and benefactor, George Washington, to commit treason against the United States; and his name was Benedict Arnold. His treason established the principle that no man is above the law and the moral principles from which the law originates; and we are a nation governed by the Republican rule of law and not by the rule of men or mobs. Likewise in U.S. intelligence principles, we judge by the risks of an adversary’s capabilities and not by our fallible estimations of the adversary’s intentions. By moral principles, Constitutional intentions, and practical considerations the commander-in-chielf of the armed forces of the United States needs to be and must be a person representative of and recruited from the natural born citizens of the United States unencumbered by potential divided loyalties or sympathies from foreign societies. The Marquis de Lafayette understood this principle and respected it while serving the cause of human liberty at the supreme risk of his own life, limb, social position, and fortunes without expectation of a reward in American political power.
“Which means they support judges using foreign written documents in US courts...of course that statement just made their heads explode because they are always against foreign documents being used in US courts.”
That is a false statement and a strawman argument. What is opposed is the citation and usage of precedentcourt decisions and laws that were not the authorities used in U.S. court decision, statutes of law, and the authoring of the U.S. Constitution.b The United States developed its own commmon-law concurrently with the development of Englasih common-law, so the two common-law traditions share in some elements and differ in many more elements. Attempts to make English common-law controlling in U.S. courts of law and the expense of American common-law and U.S. adoption of foreign legal precedents and the Law of nations is invalid to the extent of which English common-law and statutory laws were not relied upon by the United States or were opposite of American laws and principles. The same is true of British legal experience, because there were conflicts within Britain between the Royalists and the Parlimentarians, such as the conflict between the Royalist supporter, John Cowell, and the Parliamentarian, Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice.
You keep up with putting forth all of these strawman arguments, and you’ll drive up the prices for fodder for the livestock.
blah, blah, blah. You want to use foreign documents in US courts but then want to bitch when the judges bring in their own. That’s a fact, sweetcheeks.
“blah, blah, blah. You want to use foreign documents in US courts but then want to bitch when the judges bring in their own. That’s a fact, sweetcheeks.”
Yes, that is correct only so far as it is a half-truth used as a deception by omitting how the citations are inapplicable, inadmissable, and/or non-existant cases. yes, (LOL) there is nothing quite like your “judges bring in their own” fictitious and non-existant cited sources for precedents that never existed. It’s like using a faked Obama birth certificate to vouch for the authenticity of a faked English court precedent to vouch for the authenticity of Obama’s faked birth certificate to vouch for the authenticity of another person’s non-existant natural born citizenship. What could go wrong with that!?!
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.