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 ...
I will point out that Minor v Happersett did explicitly state that the 14th amendment did not define “natural born citizen.”
Cruz JR’s Canadian citizenship was originally a surprise to Cruz, but some were saying he had it and were pressing that issue at the time. And, since the law has changed since his birth, then he might well have been grandfathered in by the new law. At birth he was under the law of 1947. The law of 1977 might well have somehow grandfathered him in.
I’m not sure what you find objectionable to Cruz Sr dropping his Canadian citizenship formally. He says he did so, and I do believe that he had renounced his Cuban citizenship on acquiring Canadian citizenship. That best fits the facts. I don’t have a document in front of me, so it’s conjecture from the known facts.
Therefore, it was not necessary for him to drop it again when he dropped his Canadian citizenship on acquiring US citizenship. Since he mentions dropping the Canadian at that time, and doesn’t mention the Cuban at all, then it seems reasonable again to assume he had already dropped the Cuban.
There is a mountain of it. Far more proof than supports the jus soli claim.
Just a bunch of conjecture of "what it should be" based on sources of information not included in the Constitution, US Law, or Supreme Court Ruling.
US Law does not define "natural born citizen." It is BEYOND THE AUTHORITY of US Law to define a constitutional term.
Someone who does not comprehend this is not worth arguing with.
Thank you for the logical point.
If only everyone else would wise up.
If a person is a citizen by birth (natural born, as opposed to naturalized), then that citizenship is not going to be taken away by some future act of Congress or by a future court or whatever.
Born a citizen has meaning.
Not just on the day you are born, but forever thereafter, that is NOT going to be UNDONE.
Theorizing to the contrary notwithstanding.
No, it says the Law of 1790 doesn’t necessarily imply qualifications for the presidency. The law of 1790 CLEARLY without ANY DOUBT says that blood descent citizenship is also natural born citizenship. 1790 clearly says so.
The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? - Michigan Law Review.
Courts do not want to decide any issue that rings of political controversy. Doing so taints the (false) impression they work mightily to maintain, that they are above politics.
I have to disagree with that. Congress was constitutionally given power over naturalization AND the power to make any laws necessary to implement that power.
So, to define who needs to be naturalized one MUST define who does not need to be naturalized, ie., those who are already natural.
That is just speculation. You have no knowledge of what Cruz does or does not know about the Constitution.
Furthermore, dedicated Scholars of Constitutional law do not go to great lengths studying that aspect of article II. The rest of the constitution is far more significant in regards to most law and issues in this nation. The vast bulk of study has been on the greater body of the constitution, and not on that one small part of it that has never been needed until 2008.
Regarding Article II, Most Constitutional law people simply accept the stuff everyone parrots in their ear. It simply has never been a significant area of study for them.
They had quit until you woke them up with this slap. How about you just not start these conversations if you don't want to hear the other side?
My brother and Ted Cruz and John McCain all already have their answer regarding their US citizenship and they have had it for a very long time under the law. It’s rather you amateur, part time, basement dwelling internet warriors trolls with no legal degrees nor any degrees what so ever and to boot, with very little basic reading comprehension, who think they know it all yet know nothing and who read things that are simply not there, read things into prior legal opinions that do not say what you think and would like or wish them to say and look to English and French common laws from hundreds and hundreds ago, from years far well before the founding of our nation that have no bearing on our US Constitution, the very feudal laws and the Divine Right of Kings that we as a nation cast off and replaced with a Constitutional Republic.
My brother and Ted Cruz are not in any sort of “limbo” regardless of your claims and need not prove anything to you nor to anyone else regarding their citizenship.
Neither is the Jus Soli definition found in the constitution, and Federal law cannot redefine constitutional terms.
Federal law does not have power over the meaning of words in the constitution. Federal law derives it's authority from that document, not the other way around.
I agree with your points.
I too am opposed to granting anchor babies U.S. citizenship.
But the people who claim that Ted Cruz is Canadian NOT AMERICAN because his mother gave birth to him on Canadian soil, would have a hard time reconciling THAT claim, with the position virtually all we conservatives would claim on anchor babies.
The truth will set everyone free.
Ted Cruz has citizenship which he attained AT BIRTH - did not need to be naturalized - because his mother was an American citizen who happened to be working in Canada at the time.
That this was defined by congressional statute is no problem whatsoever, like some here want to make it. The Constitution does not define natural born citizen, and the Constitution gave Congress the power to define it.
There needs to be common sense in this matter. The Founders in no way were trying to exclude from full citizenship rights a baby who happened to be born across a boundary line, but who otherwise would be entitled to those rights.
I gave the example of let’s say a pregnant American citizen who walks across a border to buy something in a store she can’t obtain on this side. She goes into labor before she can get back across the line and her baby is delivered by a border guard or a bystander because it comes right then and there - no time for a hospital. Within a few feet or inches of the border she was TRYING to cross back into America.
Are we to believe our FABULOUS FOUNDERS were trying to prevent that American’s baby from either being a citizen at all, or from being categorized as “natural born” therefore banned from ever becoming POTUS, solely because he was born while she shopped for an hour in Mexico or Canada?
Of.course.not!
The bottom line is that the US Constitution does not define natural born citizen.
Everything outside of current US law is simply opinion for debating societies.
Current US law accepts as “citizens at birth” those who are born on the land or those who are the offspring of at least on qualified US citizen.
Anything else is conjecture.
I agree with this.
What I said was that his NOT renouncing his Cuban citizenship at the time he renounced his Canadian citizenship is circumstantial evidence that it had already been renounced.
As a matter of logic, I don't think that holds without adding some limiting assumptions.
There are billions of people outside of the set of "citizen by operation of statute," and by far most of them are not natural born citizens of the US.
To protect Cruz, your position MUST be that "citizen at birth by operation of statute" is the same as natural born citizen. IOW, Cruz is in the set of people made citizen by a naturalization act that includes citizenship by dint of criteria in place at birth.
Birth to U.S. Citizen Parents ("Acquisition")U.S. Citizenship by Birth or Through Parents | Nolo.comIn many circumstances, even though a child is born outside the United States, if at least one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, the child automatically "acquires" citizenship. When this child marries and has children, those children may also acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
The laws governing whether or not a child born outside of the United States acquires U.S. citizenship from parents have changed several times. You'll need to look at the law that was in effect on the date of the child's birth (and the parents' birth, if grandparents were U.S. citizens) for guidance. These laws differ for the following time periods:
- prior to May 24, 1934
- May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941
- January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
- December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, and
- November 14, 1986 to present.
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.