Posted on 03/13/2014 8:34:40 PM PDT by mandrews222
Are you confused about the claim that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen, with all its attendant disinformation? Well, here is your answer.
We have gathered together the top arguments of those who challenge Senator Cruzs eligibility to serve as president, along with exhaustive research and links to original sources, and condensed it all into one, bite-sized yet authoritative piece. We have done all the work for you, assembling a definitive reference you can use any time you hear someone say that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for and serve as president.
So without any further ado, here are the Top Ten Birther*Arguments against Ted Cruzs eligibility, and the reasons they are completely wrong.
Argument 1 Natural-born citizen (NBC) and Citizen at birth (CaB) have completely different meanings.
Answer No, they do not. They are synonymous. If you think the idea they arent synonymous is silly, you may not need to go on, because unless it is true, the entire debate is over. You would also be in agreement with the Congressional Research Service, which published a paper in 2011 reaching the same conclusion. Trying to argue that they do not mean the same thing is akin to claiming the terms dog and domestic canine mean completely different things. The burden of proof rests with the Eligibility Challengers. I have never heard or read anyone provide any proof whatsoever for the contention these terms have different meanings. There is no case law, and nothing else in the U.S. code or the Constitution itself, lending support to the idea that the two terms have separate meanings. Claims to the contrary are dealt with serially throughout this primer.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernfreepress.com ...
Yes, Roe v Wade is a very good analogy to using the British meaning of "Natural born subject" for "Natural born citizen."
In both cases, it is judicially created nonsense bearing no resemblance to the intent of the constitutional provision cited.
STARE DECISIS
Lat. to stand by that which is decided. The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
Which in the vernacular means "Because *I* say so." Which of course, is not a sound or rational basis for law.
The federal government’s attorneys in arguing that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen made sure that the Justices of the Supreme Court knew exactly what was at stake:
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.—Government’s Appellant Brief, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
I put as much stock in Wong Kim Ark as I do in Dred Scott. Both can be viewed as political based decisions having nothing to do with what was actually the law, but opposite in Directions. As with Dred Scott, it is mostly Republicans vs Mostly Democrats, all on their respective sides.
I have read the debates on the 14th amendment, and it is clear that they never intended to make citizens out of transient aliens.
Regarding what others say about the court's opinion, and what they claim was intended by their ruling, A D*** I do not give. If their decision is interpreted to give citizenship to the children of transient aliens, then it is just wrong.
I personally don't think that was their intent, and it matters not at all that other people claim it was.
Any court which can rule Plessy v Ferguson tacitly accepts distinctions and differences between classes of citizenship. They explicitly spelled out that some citizens had higher rights than others, and if Wong is interpreted in that light, it is not contradictory with Plessy.
Plessy is consistent with there being a class of "Citizens" and a higher class of "Natural citizens." I do not think the court reversed itself with Wong. I think people just interpret Wong incorrectly.
There are significant historical differences between the Scott and Wong decisions.
Scott was case law for only nine years. Wong has been precedential for 116 years.
Scott v. Sandford was rendered moot by an outraged majority in Congress which passed legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was vetoed by President Johnson but the veto was overridden by two-thirds majorities in both Houses.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has been cited more than 1000 times in subsequent court decisions. Even with the Obama/natural born citizen controversy of the last seven years, there has been no serious attempt to overturn U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Congress, as it did with Scott, can pass legislation to render Wong moot or to clarify its meaning.
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.