Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Not exactly. That document says that the statute gave natural born citizenship to foreign-born children of citizens but says that someone being natural born by statute doesn’t necessarily mean they are natural born for Constitutional purposes. It basically says that we need a court decision to have the answer questioned definitively.
I can handle however the court would decide; what is NOT tolerable is for the courts to deliberately leave us in limbo so they can sucker-punch us if Cruz wins the Presidency. We DO need a ruling, and we need it BEFORE the 2016 primary.
Ummm, you may want to rephrase that. What we are sometimes asked to prove is that we are legally present, and/or that we are citizens. Your argument depends on birth location being an irrelevant factor, if one parent is a citizen.
The statute, which you elevate above the constitution, also says anchor babies born of alien parents are citizens. Not relevant at the moment, but may be for a future candidate.
Aagh. To have the QUESTION answered definitively (not to have the answer questioned definitively. lol. I’m getting loopy, I think. Time to go read a computer programming textbook... lol)
Thank you for answering all my questions both satisfactorily and timely.
May avoid bless you and yours,
I didn’t do it! All I did was report the zotting.
However, You are correct; it was a righteous zot by The Man Himself.
You just don’t tug on Superman’s cape.
That is, “May GOD bless you and yours”
I don’t know how autocorrect got “avoid”...curse you autocorrect feature!!!
What it says is that it seems to imply they meet constitutional requirements, but not necessarily. Otherwise, it would say that they do not meet constitutional requirements.
The weight is in favor of their meeting presidential requirements, which is what we've been arguing all along. And it certainly does not mean that they do NOT meet constitutional requirements.
I do NOT want this handled by a court. I want it handled by the Congress, as the Constitution envisions. This area is under the purview of the Congress.
lol. I wondered about that. After my loopy performance in the last post I could see myself typing what you did even without autocorrect messing with it. lol. But I figured that was what you meant, and I thank you for the kind sentiments. I appreciate your interest in facts and gentle way of presenting yourself. =)
Thank you for your kind words.
You can’t elevate above the Constitution the supreme law of the land that is derived at by the process laid out in the Constitution. With the Constitution and Constitutionally approved Treaties, we are talking about what the constitution calls “the supreme law of the land.”
And the constitution gave the area of citizenship to Congress.
Unless you know of some place in the Constitution where it defines “natural born citizen.”;
Was Zero father ever a resident of the US prior to Zero’s birth? I don’t know that, but the 1795 law requires it as a condition.
I understand you not wanting it decided by a court. That’s a very scary prospect, given what the courts have been willing to do on a variety of issues. I’ve said many times that I was afraid the court would screw things up. Roberts is compromised; nothing is secure with him in there.
But I truly don’t think we have any way of keeping it from the courts. All it would take is for Hillary to challenge in court, and there would be automatic standing and a “case” that the courts would HAVE to decide. If Cruz won the vote I have zero doubts at all that she would appeal to the courts. Her husband put the “Magnificent Seven” judges in the DC Circuit Court just to do legal CYA for him, and Soros has already gotten Roberts to bend to his will. By that time Ginsburg may be out or dead, replaced by the foreign enemy combatant in our White House.... so she would have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I think the only way we can head that off is by forcing the courts to rule at a point BEFORE they have a chance to sucker-punch us.
In the military (and BTW, thank you for your service. My sister’s father-in-law was a military chaplain for YEARS), isn’t it true that if you know you can’t stop an attack you do your best to mitigate the damage? That’s unfortunately the position we’re in right now. We can’t stop the courts from being compromised at this point, and we can’t stop Hillary from filing a suit that will have to be decided. But we CAN force the judiciary to show their hands BEFORE they’ve sucker-punched us. We can detonate the bomb on the bridge BEFORE all our troops are on the bridge. Know what I mean?
You are confused about what statutory law is. You cite 8 USC 1401 as being where Congress codified who are nationals and citizens at birth, which is correct, but you don't seem to understand that 8 USC 1401 (a) codifies both the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Immigration and Naturalization Act, whereas (b) - (h) codify only the Immigration and Naturalization Act and various other revised statutes.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act is statutory law passed by Congress and is not written in the Constitution.
SCOTUS was clear in Rogers v Bellei that the Constitution governs certain types of citizenship and Congress governs all other types by enacting statutes. In referring to the 14th Amendment, the court said:
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.Now you have two sources - State Department policy and the Supreme Court - which say that statutory citizenship does exist and is governed by Congress.
I think we are talking to bigots; the liberal kind, the troll kind. George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers could return to Earth and tell them Cruz is good to go and they would still argue.
I think he came to Hawaii in 1960, but don’t quote me on that. Fred would know. Fred, are you there?
Of course, we really don’t know who Obama’s father or mother were, because the HI state registrar wouldn’t verify either Stanley Ann Dunham or Barack Hussein Obama as the parents...
Yes, thank you. Please explain that to CodeToad who does not believe there is any such animal.
Naturalization, to be precise about it. Your argument depends on rules of naturalization being controlling authority to define natural born citizen.
If I understand your argument, since rules of naturalization is a power of Congress, the definition of "natural born citizen" is also a power of Congress. My point is that under that source of authority, the definition of "natural born citizen" is not fixed. Whatever "natural born citizen" meant 50 years ago is different today (the rules of naturalization as applied to foreign born children of a citizen parent have changed), and can be different again tomorrow. The phrase "natural born citizen" has no independent/constitutional definition, it depends on congress to define it.
Now, whether or not that elevates the congressional enactment to be above the constitution is just argument over the intention of the founders. If the founders intended "natural born citizen" to have a fixed meaning, then giving congress the power to change the meaning would be I submit, elevating congress/statute over the constitution. On the other hand, if you are right, then the founders never intended "natural born citizen" to have a fixed meaning.
I’m not sure I’ve cleared much fog, but you’re welcome.
Hey! I resemble that remark. ;p
If the opposition cheats, then you might as well put forward your best candidate.
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.