Posted on 01/08/2016 6:52:06 PM PST by Uncle Sham
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4
This thread is among several threads with the theme of defining a Natural Born Citizen.
That is all well and good and interesting but I pose a slightly different question. The slightly different question assumes that Ted Cruz is a legal natural born citizen.
With that in mind the question is:
Why did the founders specify No Person except a natural born Citizen to the requirements for a presidential candidate but did not specify No Person except a natural born Citizen to the requirements for congressional candidates?
That question solicits very few opinions and even fewer answers in response.
Do any of you have an opinion regarding my question?
A this point in time, presidential elections have an inverted burden of proof. A person who says or acts as though he is eligible, is deemed to be so from the start. The state and federal election officers don't demand any evidence other than a sworn statement from the parties. Courts won't touch the question either because a plaintiff has no standing, or because courts aren't the body empowered to find eligibility, Congress is. So, if the natural born citizenship is in any way questionable (say being born in a different country), there is no venue to "officially" decide the issue. This naturally leads to some amount of public debate, which is never resolved.
The debate of Obama's NBC status continues, even though he is deemed to be an NBC.
I don't see the facts of Cruz's birth to be an issue. All agree he was born in Canada, and it will be easy enough to prove he is a 1401(g) citizen of the United States. In Cruz's case, the issue is purely one of law, there is no question of fact. Is a person born out of the country, born a citizen of that country, who is also a citizen of the united states by operation of a statute, a natural born citizen of the united states? We'll never get an answer from a court, and if elected, Congress will probably seat Cruz without touching the question.
OTOH, it is possible, likely if the House is majority DEM, that the issue will come up after counting of the electoral votes, and Congress will, at that point, find Cruz ineligible. It has that power, no question.
-- Nothing says that legalese cannot consider two events, that it decides to differentiate between, to be/meet the same end condition. --
The effect of "deeming" is to eradicate legal differentiation. Two things/circumstances that are in fact different, are treated in law as though they are not different.
Like your baseball example. If the rule is "touch home plate", but runs score when a base runner does not touch home plate, then two circumstances that are different (one being touching home plate and the other being not touching home plate, but crossing within half a foot directly above it) are treated by the umpire as being the same. In one case, there is a "legal fiction" that crossing home plate within half a foot directly above is touching home plate. Same effect in the game, a run scores. As far as the game is concerned, there is no difference between touching the plate and not touching the plate.
Related, but not directly addressing your question:
The Founding Fathers, in considering a religious qualification for holding office, pointed out that successful political candidates, even ‘Papists, Jews or Mahometans’, would have either proven themselves trustworthy by their fellow citizens, or the nation would have changed so much that it wouldn’t make a difference.
http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-religious-test-clause.html
...Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases.
First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen.
I leave to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves...
Congress has redefined who is a natural-born citizen a number of times since then. When Winston Churchill addressed Congress in December 1941 he famously noted that had his father been born in the U.S. instead of his mother then he might have gotten there on his own. That's because when Churchill was born children born abroad to one U.S. citizen were U.S. citizen only if the citizen parent had been the father. It has been changed since then.
If the 1790 Act never existed and the 1795 Act using the term "citizen" was all we had to go on, how would that suffice as definition of "natural born citizen"?
Anyone born to an adult citizen is a citizen regardless of where they are born
Well that settles it then..thanks. Now I wonder what all the dust-up was about with Jugheads pedigree..based on your careful analysis..our president is obviously a NBC.
Happy Trails..
.
No, Obama was born to a minor, so he had to be naturalized (1983)
.
>> “That’s because when Churchill was born children born abroad to one U.S. citizen were U.S. citizen only if the citizen parent had been the father.” <<
No, that has never been so.
.
Both terms mean the same thing. They are interchangable in every respect.
Stop trolling!
You insist they mean the same thing. Please prove it because your insisting is not enough.
So, What would Barry’s citizenship be sense his father was from africa? thx
.
You posted the act without reading it?
Read it.
Was she naturalized before he was born?
ChiCom anchor babies.
No. I was searching for the BC's involving Cruz, and it was late at night and I was tired, and I didn't even look that close at it. I goofed big time.
: )
Answer:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. " .....John Jay letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787
His father was Frank Marshall Davis from Kansas.
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.