Heeeeey...I got a new Chip card and my payment still came out!
The wording in later definitions of what is a U.S. citizen by birth pertains to citizenship. Where is the wording that says such citizenship describes a natural born citizen? I hope someone can get the wording that makes the connection.
Unfortunately there are a few plausible opinions on why he is not.
There will be a Federal Court case on this one that eventually reaches the USSC.
My prejudice is clear, I believe NBC is born to two US Citizens on US territory, whether Puerto Rico, Guam or a Air Force base on Kwajalein Atoll. And all the 50 states.
I'm old fashioned that way.
But, I don't believe that it's a legal opinion that will prevail.
It won’t be an issue because Cruz will not win the nomination.
Though I would be fine with it if he did, though I’m not convinced at all of his NBC status.
I’d rather see him as AG, and wind up on the supreme court.
If cruz being born in Canada is OK with everyone than why did we have the birther movement trying to prove Obama wasn’t eligible based on his supposed birth in kenya?
I like Ted
But I confess I too have pondered the wording surrounding this
It has often made me think it required birth on US soil
State or territory or dependency
But the founders and subsequent wrote quite a bit on it that infers natural born means anyone deemed a citizen at birth without need of naturalization
Hence born to US citizens even abroad is still considered natural born
Barry was born in Arizona US territory and Queeg in the US Canal Zone
Cruz may be the first test but he’s on terra firma no doubt
If the ham sandwich we have in there now is any indication, anyone could be.
“Trump knows very well that Cruz is eligible, ..”
Yes he does, and after this ultimate dirty political move, how can we trust ANYTHING Trump has said?
Heeeeey...I got a new Chip card and my payment still came out!
remember too that George Romney, father of Mitt, was born in Mexico but ran for president.
I donated to Ted (and FR) and today starts prayer and fasting.
God Bless America Again! :)
Fyi, nine presidents not born in the US. I’m sure they understood the Constitution more than birther nuts.
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
Neal Katyal, who was acting solicitor general in the Obama administration from May 2010 to June 2011, and Paul Clement, solicitor general from 2004 to 2008 in the George W. Bush administration, said, "As Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.
The bolded section is a blatant lie. Through most of American history an individual born in circumstances like Cruz would NOT have been considered a citizen from birth.
And that being the case, the second part simply cannot be true.
If you were made a citizen by statute, you can't have been made a citizen by nature. The two things are mutually exclusive.
So you believe a person 35 years old, conceived via IVF between a US citizen mother’s egg and donated sperm by a Danish man, then embryo implanted into the womb of a woman with Pakistani citizenship but then raised by the US citizen mother married to a German citizen in Mongolia is eligible to be the President of The United States?
keep repeating it... maybe people will start to believe it.
meanwhile, for those engulfed in the smoke, try to remember WHY the Founders used that exact phrase. it was only used ONCE for a single position... that of the President.
Their main concern was to insure no foreign king could ever take office. Additionally, they wanted to insure against split allegiances, at least by birth. some try to say being born with citizenship makes the person a natural born citizen... but that wouldn’t exclude foreign kings.
what to do. well, a book called ‘the law of nations’ was published in 1758. this was available to the Founders at the time of the writing of the Constitution. of interest:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
(In book one chapter 19 § 212)
and there you have it. excluding foreign kings while insuring no split allegiances. a common definition well known at the time of the writing.
now, you may ask why all the confusion if such a straight forward answer can be had. that’s simple. power and money.
many people want to see ‘their guy’ win the nomination and maybe the white house. others hope certain candidates will take the nomination so they can have him disqualified just before the election. don’t be fooled.
we already disregarded the Constitutional requirement once. do you think doing so again will improve things?
Bush41’s presidential library is on the campus, and Rick Perry is a Texas A&M almmus, but Aggieland is clearly Cruz Country.
Gig ‘Em
= JP
The Bryan-College Station Eagle = The Editorial BoardLOL! Is this the conservative constitutionalist's legal team?
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Harvard Law Review Article by Katyal & Clement FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen
The Bryan College Station... Ok, now I’m convinced.
Do you know where most people go for the best Constitutional law advice? The editorial board of something called the The Bryan-College Station Eagle. You can find it piled up next to the exit door at your local grocery store. LOL.