Posted on 12/30/2013 2:48:37 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
Very interesting....
Yup, I think he may run for the corner office in DC. :-)
Cruz ‘16! Accept no imitations.
A lot of people would walk over hot coals to ensure he got elected.
The definition of ‘natural born’ meant historically to be born of a father who was a citizen who was married to a citizen. This was created by the actions of John Jay to General George Washington for the purpose of ensuring allegiance and duty to the soon to be new nation of the United States.
Since the 14th Amendment was passed the notion of ‘natural born citizen’ versus citizen at birth has been muddled. Until Obama the issue has never been litigated. There were reservations and claims that Chester Garfield was not eligible because one of his parents may have been a Canadian citizen when he born but nothing came of it.
As for the place of birth, President Madison was asked if ‘natural born’ applied to citizen parents who were in transit on ship or residing abroad on business or under diplomatic commission. Madison’s response was yes ‘natural born’ applied to such births because the domicile was still in the United States, its territories or possessions.
It is important to understand the difference between ‘domicile’ and ‘residency’.
I can reside in Paris but maintain my domicile in Seattle. And domicile may be a frame of mind in that my residency in Paris is to me only a temporary arrangement whereas my allegiance remains to the USA.
In law frequently a ‘domicile’ must be evidenced by a postal address.
Some will maintain a ‘domicile’ in certain locations such as Monaco for tax purposes yet they ‘reside’ say in London.
Ted Cruz does not fit the historical definition of ‘natural born’ but neither does Obama. But resolutions passed in the US Senate on behalf of McCain for the 2008 presidential election coupled with the fact that Obama’s claimed father was never a citizen (not to mention that Obama may not even have been born in the USA) have cleared the way for Cruz to be President.
While working and residing in Canada Ted’s mother maintained her ‘domicile’ in the US because she never intended to pledge allegiance to Canada. Her residency there was only for purposes of work.
But this will not stop the democrats from coming after Ted on the issue.
And with immigration amnesty, there will not be a Republican president for a generation at least so it won’t matter in any event.
If he were a democRAT who had been born in Kenya the media wouldn’t care.
HE can still run for president — if a Kenyan born child can move around the world and visit other foreign nations on a British passport and change their name at will...get elected through voter fraud - then it’s an open house at this point!
oh — and then claim on race over the other to promote himself - Cruz can do that to!
See - it’s all about freedom - basically unhinged no rules freedom!!!
(sarc/)
right the current pretender was born to a whore in Kenya and was a British crown citizen who became an Indonesian citizen.....and went to schools only Muslims could go to.
It’s funny how a media can find Ted Cruz has dual citizenship, but cannot explain Obama having a Connecticut Social Security number.
Funny they cannot find out if Obama had a foreign Student label during his college days. Can’t even find out his grades or one student who remembers him at one college.
In America we have a Constitution that guarantees a Free Press, but we do not have a Free Press, we have a propaganda outlet as bad as the one in Nazi Germany.
Chester A. Arthur.
To be fair, in the USA until the early 20th century, a woman by definition could not have different citizenship from that of her husband. A wife's citizenship directly tracked her husbands.
To illustrate how strange this was, my great-grandfather was an immigrant from Galicia in Eastern Europe. When he came to the USA and married my great-grandmother (a natural born American citizen), she automatically became a citizen of his nation and *lost* her American citizenship. At this point, she no longer had the right to vote, etc. She became American again later when my great-grandfather himself became naturalized.
When my grandfather told me this, I initially didn't believe it, but my research into the law of the era confirmed that this is how it would have happened.
My point is, historically, the wife's birth citizenship meant nothing.
Correct. I have read some historical references that said citizenship pre-eminently followed the father, and it was NEVER intended that citizenship would descend to someone Who’s father was not a citizen.
Thanks for the correction. It’s early and the fingers fly on the keyboard faster than the thoughts assemble.
Thanks again.
> “To be fair, in the USA until the early 20th century, a woman by definition could not have different citizenship from that of her husband. A wife’s citizenship directly tracked her husbands.”
That is exactly true, thus why I constructed the sentence the way it was written, as a redundant phrase.
Hostage wrote: “Until Obama the issue has never been litigated.”
Uh...it still hasn’t.
The Constitution be damned, eh?
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.
