I’m a huge Trump supporter, but this is a non-issue. I know Trump was responding to a reporter’s question, but he needs to let this thing go.
Last I looked, the author isn’t on the Supreme Court.
Justice Scalia: “Well, maybe. I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution. I don’t think you’re disagreeing. It requires jus soli, doesn’t it? “
you must be crazy if you think the guy born in canada isn’t a natural born american
...
/sarc
by his own definition, TCruz is a ‘natural born citizen’ of:
- Canada
- the US
- Cuba
- the UK
last i checked, you cannot be a natural born citizen from more then one country.
I was just listening to Rush. I never got from Trump that he was questioning whether Cruz was an American citizen. It was whether he was a natural born citizen, according to the Constitution.
You are a Jew, if your mother is a Jew.
First, one needs to consider the constitutional provision itself, as it was understood when adopted. Second, the 1790 naturalization act was repealed by the 1795 naturalization act. Third, the 1795 act eliminated the 1790 “natural born citizen” provision. 4th, the 1795 law corrected the 1790 clause to merely bestow or recognize those born of American parents as “citizens” — significantly NOT nbc’s. This was a patently key change in the new act, which otherwise mostly added new content to the naturalization- of - aliens provision. (And while we’re at it, the repealed 1790 act only addressed children of American parents, not children of an American patent and a citizens of foreign powers ... But again, that law didn’t work to Congress’ expectations and had to be repealed anyway shortly after it was passed.). Relying on repealed laws that never applied to anybody alive today — gets us almost nowhere. But the phrase “natural born citizen” was pretty well understood at the time it was put in our Constitution... All this has been discussed here and elsewhere — I’m not going to get pulled into it again now. My major point is just to point out how unreliable much of the professional media commentary is nowadays. Especially on matters regarding our country’s constitution ( including our individual liberties!) and governmental system. It seems that “anything goes” and that advocacy ( even of candidates and positions I like a lot) is now standard fare as “news articles”. Beware the media!
Ps: what I am saying above is that we cannot rely on many published articles or even “analyses” when they appear in the mass media today. Too much uninformed or biased , distorted writing. Secondly, if you want to support a candidate, tell us why you think s/he will do good things in office — and dont twist facts or history. One argument could be that since Obama is clearly ineligible (daddy, forgetting where Obama was or wasn’t born) but has nevertheless been permitted to occupy the office, that any of several other similarly- ineligible candidates should now be permitted to maybe win the office too. Not the world’s strongest argument but at least it doesn’t misstate American history.
I hope to God it’s not true when Dad Cruz said the two of them took the Canadian oath of citizenship. I cannot imagine that any candidate, especially one as smart as Cruz, would run with this hanging out there.
Because if it’s true, we have a real bag of snakes on our hands.
Court opinions, congressional statutes, Harvard professors... The ONLY thing that matters is- what did natural born mean when the Constitution was adopted?
If that's NBC, welcome to Obama land.
As far as I know there is still no US Birth Certificate as his mother didn't pursue it upon return to Texas.
It would be nice for a Federal court to clear this up with a declarative ruling.
The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
James Madison the "father of the Constitution" changed the wording from "natural born citizen" to "citizen". Madison was no dope and the change was to prevent a foriegn born from becoming Commander in Chief. But this also serves to illustrate that "citizen at birth" does not mean "natural born citizen".
See more at
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/harvard-law-review/
This National Review article is not playing straight--the article is biased in favor of Cruz' eligibility, an issue which is not settled.
An obvious instance of this bias is the author's (McCarthy's) characterization (or mischaracterization) of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the first legislation on the subject. According to McCarthy:
The Act provided that children born outside the United States to American citizens were "natural born" U.S. citizens at birth, "Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
This statement is false. The Act did not provide that children born outside the United States to American citizens were natural born (subject to the exception given). The Act provided, rather, that such children were to be considered as natural born citizens. McCarthy apparently paraphrases in order to avoid the actual text, which reads as follows:
And 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 . . . .
Why not quote the actual words of the statute? And why wouldn't Congress have used "are" instead of "shall be considered as"?
I don't know for sure about McCarthy, but Congress used "shall be considered as" instead of "are" because the first Congress recognized that it did not have the power to create natural born citizens. Article I Section 8 provides that "The Congress shall have power . . . To establish a uniform rule of naturalization . . . ." There is no power granted to establish a rule granting natural born citizenship status.
The first Congress accordingly prescribed that the children at issue "shall be considered as" natural born, rather than that they "are" natural born. By this Act, Congress was establishing a rule of naturalization (at birth) for foreign-born children of citizens, with the directive that such children "shall be considered as" natural born citizens (in law), even though they are not natural born citizens (in fact).
Further, since Congress only has power to create naturalized citizens, anyone whose citizenship is the result of an Act of Congress (the result of of any enacted law) is not a "natural born" citizen.