Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."
. . .
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.
It’s all about the CONSTITUTION.
You lie. Fatherhood is only mentioned in regards to residency, not lineage.
Seriously, I think what’s behind this article is not an commitment to law but hatred of evangelical Christians.
And that is what we have to start looking at.
I truly think being “naturalized at BIRTH” is splitting legal hairs.
The whole point of “natural born” is someone growing up with an allegiance to a certain country, an identification with it. How much further back can you go but “birth”?
My father was a German, and became an American citizen in his twenties, and from seeing him, I can see why the requirement is there for “natural born.” Naturalized citizens have split allegiances, and hold onto the ideas somewhat of their country of birth and childhood, which is also the country of their family.
What’s a “Natural Citizen”?
You are a liberal living breathing consti kind of guy with no understanding of original intent jurisprudence.
What? From a liberal judge, based on ALAN GRAYSON's phony lawsuit? Are you serious?
I swear that some people on this board have gone fruit loop crazy, since they are actually siding with the likes of Grayson and Rivera to try and take down the one Conservative in the race, on the behalf of a slick-tongued New York con man. It's unbelievable!
Unfortunately congress has no power to define the term. Only the Supreme Court can make it settled law. It is specifically derived from the constitution. (Not even case law can settle it.)
Looks like he was saying then the same thing as Trump is now.
Read post 87 and 105.
Then come back and apologize to me for your silly remarks.
So tell me what the definition is, then?
You are correct! Add to that the fact that England didn’t have “Citizens” they had Subjects, as in Subject to the King. We threw the King out on July 4, 1776 and declared ourselves a Free People. There WAS a Revolution, after all.
Native Born.
No court ever ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen. They just refused to hear the case about it.
What does “Native Born” mean?
Ladysforest brought the incident to my attention. I just dug up the video. Btw, there is a 1000 post thread on FR about this video back in 2013
We are a Republic based on the concept of the sovereignty of the individuals comprising it, and not the opinions of some long dead guys. We make our own way or we are wholly owned by the peoples and the concepts of the past.
You seem to imply we are not really sovereign individuals, since this concept is simply one in a long line of evolutionary developments pertaining to the very concept of the individual it`s self.
Ok, then where do we halt that evolution in the concept of the individual? English Common Law? Based on what 'divine' or 'privileged' status? Please explain what the hell makes them so 'magical' that we surrender the very concept of individual sovereign right to change or alter our own destiny?
This the current B$ interpretation in an attempt to make Citizen = to Natural Born Citizen and it is a very sorry attempt. This technique used to solely belong to the Democratic party, but I see we are not above using it if we feel we can get away with it. You likely will be able to shame most Freepers into going along, but you will get no such cooperation from Hillary and her Minions.
One of the proper uses of the “necessary and proper’ clause (which has been used in many improper ways) is to define terms not specifically defined, to determine just what these terms do and do not mean.
That’s a Congressional power. The Founders never intended to give that to the courts.
Trump's warning was that the Democrats will make this a campaign issue, and you can be sure the MSM will do their part with weekly "serious" analyses and articles from a parade of "distinguished law professors" and such. All designed to sow confusion and doubt. Why else did Team Obama go to such great lengths to argue that he was born in Hawaii? Why did Chester Arthur go do such great lengths to conceal his Canadian birth? The jus soli question is real.
Ted needs to get in front of this issue in a serious way if he wants to avoid major complications in the Fall (assuming he's on the ticket). Trying to laugh this off isn't working.
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.