natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz

Legal Insurrection ^ | 9/3/13 | William Jacobson

[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

[noinfringers2]

I wouldn’t feel comfortable to rely only on the fact someone who ‘just grew up in the US’ is qualified for POTUSA as this doesn’t demand allegiance to our Constitution. There are memories of the post WWII days with all the communists coming out of the political woodwork. I believe the ‘born to parentS who are citizenS of the land of birth’ is a very good and probably the most practical lock on allegiance to be expected.

[Responsibility2nd]

OK fine. Now would you support Cruz if the Supreme Court ruled that yes he is a NBC, therefore eligible?

[Lakeshark]

Yep, you can be closed minded and snarky any time you wish. It's a free country.

Unfortunately it won't help you understand very much.

Good day to you sir.

[Triple]

Cruz is clearly a NBC.

He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother.

What is all the fuss about?

[C. Edmund Wright]

I’ll let the unhappy nabobs of negativity and irrelevant purism masterbate.....not gonna join in....they’re on a lost cause and they just cannot stand it.

[P-Marlowe]

I posted my essay because it comprehensively refutes Jacobson's thesis.

Jacobson is a conservative legal scholar at a demonstrably liberal law school. Not an easy task to achieve by any means.

Would you mind posting your credentials? You don't have to tell us who you are, just post your qualifications to dispute those of Jacobson's. You know, like what law school you attended, whether you were a magna cum laude graduate. How long you have been practicing law and how many of those years were devoted to Constitutional law issues. How many treatises on statutory interpretation you have published. Whether you have ever successfully argued cases before Federal Courts of Appeal. Stuff like that.

Just give us a little background as to why we should accept your opinion over that of Mr. Jacobson.

[P-Marlowe]

What is all the fuss about?

It appears that the birther community, after having lost every court case that they have brought against Obama, have decided to attempt to gain some credibility by turning their guns on Ted Cruz.

[Lakeshark]

I understand, however it's a good (long, geek oriented) article worthy of reading.

What? No mention of Pharisees? You're losing it.........

:-)

[sourcery]

Sorry guys, this debate is over. If I can’t make my full case (per the site owner’s wishes,) then I shall make no case at all.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Ah, you miss the point. I’ll read it....but I won’t bother with the unhappy self righteous miserable Pharisees....(there you go...)

[Razz Barry]

Here's a question I have. If Cruz had been raised in Canada, would you still think him eligible for President?

[Uncle Chip]

Jill A. Pryor: Thus, at the time of the framing of the Constitution, there was no common understanding of what ‘natural born citizen’ meant.

Surely she jests. Then why did they use it? She obviously never read the Supreme Court decisions on the matter like Justice Waite in Minor versus Happersett:

“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.”

[Uncle Chip]

<>Just give us a little background as to why we should accept your opinion over that of Mr. Jacobson.<>

Because Constitutional scholars with impeccable credentials agree with him:

Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

[Responsibility2nd]

I asked..... OK fine. Now would you support Cruz if the Supreme Court ruled that yes he is a NBC, therefore eligible?

You said...... Sorry guys, this debate is over. If I can’t make my full case (per the site owner’s wishes,) then I shall make no case at all.

_________________________________________________________________________

So. If I may - I’ll answer for you. Its very simple actually. Upthread you said you could vote for Cruz if a Constitutional Amendment overturn the NBC clause.

So why can’t you support Cruz based on a Supreme Court ruling?

Cause that’s what’s at issue here. Dozens of rulings and apellate court rulings have clearly identified Obama is a NBC. And the Supremes have validated those court findings again and again.

And no one. Not any of the 50 states - not the Congress - not the press including right wingers like Rush, Levin and others - not even conservative Repubs - NO ONE has any standing to claim Obama is not a NBC.

Precedence has been clearly established. Are you a US citizens? If so - then you are qualified to be the prez.

You disagree? Go stand in line with your lawsuit. The line forms after Taitz, Berg, Hollister, Donofrio, et al......

[Lakeshark]

I won’t bother with the unhappy self righteous miserable Pharisees..

My favorite phrase, your edge is back........

:-)

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Here is a respected attorney with outstanding credentials that basically destroys the flawed thesis of Mr. Jacobson. Dr. Herb Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

[sourcery]

So why can’t you support Cruz based on a Supreme Court ruling?

I never said that. Please respect my wishes, and stop trying to drag me into any further discussion on the topic on FR.

[nesnah]

“Here’s a question I have. If Cruz had been raised in Canada, would you still think him eligible for President? “

---

It’s an outstanding question that few here would be willing to answer honestly.

[P-Marlowe]

This Herb Titus?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/biblical-birthers-titus-claims-bible-says-obama-ineligible-presidency

[rolling_stone]

yeah but does he know securities law like Jacobson and blog for conservatives?