Posted on 03/12/2015 12:32:49 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Two of the top lawyers for the Obama and Bush administrations agree on this: Sen. Ted Cruz can become president. Legally speaking, anyway.
Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama, penned a piece for the Harvard Law Review tackling the question of what the Constitution means when it says that the president must be at least 35 years old, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and a natural born Citizen.
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase natural born Citizen has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time, they wrote. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
Cruz was born in a Canadian hospital to a mother who was a U.S. citizen. But hes only the latest potential presidential candidate who has had his qualifications questioned. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) was born in Arizona before it was a state. Gov. George Romney (R-Mich.) was delivered in Mexico to U.S. residents. All were qualified to serve, . . . .
The First Congress, they noted, established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were themselves citizens at birth and explicitly recognized that such children were natural born citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
[President Walker,Vice-president Cruz.....Governors do things, senators vote on things that other people do]
Governor Walker is my Governor, and for that I am very grateful. I think he would make a wonderful President. I have a great appreciation for Ted Cruz, though. His beliefs and principles I so admire. I could and would support either.
If people aren't thinking about it, they aren't going to worry about it, but if you keep spreading the question around, people are going to start to ponder it.
We need people pondering issues, and how the Democrats are wrecking our country, not whether he's eligible or not.
Now this is a statement to which I take exception. The Supreme court might declare what the legions of Government Arms will enforce, but they can't actually change REALITY.
It is like saying " I wish the Supreme Court would hurry up and define Pi."
Sorry, they can't. Besides, any body that interprets the 14th amendment as allowing Abortion and Gay Marriage is not a body I would want "interpreting" anything.
I think the articles are written to lure good conservatives and to mislead into accepting falsities, and is an effort to legitimate Obama.
And this is a point I simply cannot get anyone on the other side to grasp. Their eyes glaze over every time you try to make them understand that.
Congress can't modify the Constitution. The Supreme Court Can't modify the Constitution. The President Can't modify the Constitution.
Meanings of constitutional terms cannot be changed by Congressional acts or Judicial "Interpretations."
Well, that and other things, like being a Ron Paul devotee.
Keep going... you are starting to "get it." How can Congress modify the meaning of a Constitutional requirement at their whim? Well they can't.
They can create Citizens through their power of naturalization, but they cannot make them "natural" citizens.
I cite the US Constitution, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and a real lawyer professor, William A Jacobson
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
read this my friend
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
Or you can be like Jerome Corsi and believe Obama was born both in HI and Kenya.
Is recognition the same as definition?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
Well i'll go you one better than that. I'll cite the Entire Supreme court in their ruling "Wong Kim Ark."
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,...
That is true. However, the key word is “jurisdiction”. An American Airman whose British wife gives birth in a London hospital to baby boy - the boy is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, therefore a citizen at birth, therefore making him nbC.
Well if "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" as mentioned in the 14th amendment gives US Jurisdiction over the children of Illegal Immigrants, than applying the exact same rule in the exact same way gives England "Jurisdiction" over babies born in their country.
Do we use one rule when we apply the concept domestically and another rule when we apply it abroad? Cause I thought the word was supposed to mean the same thing in all cases.
Besides that, i've got an even better argument i'll post in the next message. :)
Cruz acquired citizenship by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub.L. 82-414, as amended. That law designates the class of persons to which Cruz belongs as “citizen”.
The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is quite clear on this point: statutes conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens is naturalization.
Sorry, but 66 was supposed to be posted to your post 52, not your post 53.
It is 52 that calls for it to be pointed out that as you work against Cruz, that you are part of what is left of the Ron Paul crew.
What is Ted Cruz’s naturalization number?
My better argument is to include what the Supreme court said BEFORE that quote I excerpted.
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, ...
I read it as the Supreme court declaring that "Jurisdiction" means within the actual borders.
No it does not. The parents would be here illegally which would exclude their children under Section 2 - Children of illegal occupiers of the US would not be.
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.