Posted on 09/05/2015 1:47:06 PM PDT by iowamark
Imply: Exactly right. And that’s why the bamster was eligible too. His mother was a U.S. citizen (and daddy Frank too!). Doesn’t matter where she birthed him.......
Hillary, is that you starting this birther thing again???/sarc
You mean this definition:
nat·u·ral-born
adjective
adjective: natural-born
having a specified innate characteristic or ability.
Notice the word innate?
Didn't say it was, but there is no dispute that a child born of two citizen parents on the soil of their country is Natural Born, there are disputes otherwise.
Please argue why it take a statute to create a citizen when there is no need to when the child is born as a described.
BTW, I am not arguing that Cruz is unfit for POTUS, I will vote for him if he gets the nomination.
Obama destroyed any notion of NBC, fight fire with fire.
The Framers do not agree with you:
James Madison:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships5.html
Ted Cruz’s mother is a natural born citizen which makes him a natural born citizen.
Apparently having a mother who is a natural born citizen means nothing to those who like to stir the pot of silly.
Maybe not you, but others have tried to cite it as a precedent, and ignore the second half of the paragraph.
What is the point of this? Disputing or discussing his eligibility too long has been stated as a reason for removal from the site, by decree. It’s not as if any real challenge to it can happen here, even if the contrary opinion was important enough for McCain, when he was running, to secure a declaration that he is a natural born citizen though born in Panama.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The US Constitution make many references to Citizenship as well as NBC in this Country, I can't believe you would make such a lame argument.
No, I have never cited it as precedent, but it the closest thing that I know of that there is to give definition to the term.
Bills of Attainder are not defined, ex post facto is not defined, well regulated as well as we the people is not defined either.
But as H v M pointed out, we must go back and study the nomenclature, or semantics of the words that were used at the time.
NBC had a very specific meaning, one that was to eliminate all possible loyalties of a POTUS having bias toward any other then America.
I have studied this intensely, for a long time now, it, IMO, is the INTENT of the Founding Fathers.
From the Naturalization Act of 1790 (from Wikipedia):
“The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
Notice that embedded within this clause is a definition of what the founders considered to be a “natural born citizen” which is “children born of citizens of the United States”.
The only time “natural born citizen” was used in the Constitution — when stipulating requirements to be President.
This Act is well-known, but was but was not mentioned in this article. And, some people claim that an expert is needed to understand it. Of course, the Act has been replaced a number of times; but it contains a definition of what the framers had in mind about the “natural born citizen” requirement.
BFL
Any one know how to ping the Not This S___ Again guy?
Cause this thread is begging for him.
I realize that it’s neither legal nor logical, but my top argument is this:
Dems, you foisted 0vomit on us with no known existing birth certificate and a host of legitimate doubts about his real identity and eligibility (not to mention his utter lack of accomplishments). Now we have a competent, qualified, America-loving candidate with real accomplishments and a demonstrated track record. Up yours.
Good luck with your “theory” .. you’ll need it.
More than likely it was merely to correspond with the Constitution's grandfather clause and be of limited duration since they repealed that naturalization act in it's entirety just 5 years later without the natural born provision.
The Naturalization Act of 1795,
Section 4
And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
There is nothing to show the Founders had long term intentions to allow people born overseas who were not in service to the country to be Natural born citizens.
long term intentions to allow people born overseas to parents who were not in service to the country
H. Brook Paige v. James Condos, Secretary of State of Vermont and President Barack Obama: Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge
“While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude wthat his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”—Vermont Superior Court, November 14, 2012
Somebody is desperate to ride the ZOT train.
“More than likely it was merely to correspond with the Constitution’s grandfather clause and be of limited duration since they repealed that naturalization act in it’s entirety just 5 years later without the natural born provision.”
“More than likely”?
The natural born language is written into the Constitution. There is a procedure for amending the Constitution and it has NOTHING to do with naturalization requirements. Laws of naturalization can not change the Constitution.
What the framers wrote into the Constitution showed what their long-term intentions were. It was a carefully written and much debated document.
His mother is a US citizen.
You missed that part.
Plus, do you really think that they would permit an election to go forward without a candidate on the republican side?
Or are you suggesting that a president-elect Cruz would be ruled ineligible and then the losers would become the victors? It doesn’t work that way.
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.