Posted on 01/17/2016 4:37:25 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
In recent weeks, much time and effort has been devoted to debating whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency. Whichever way you come down on this question of constitutional interpretation, the real lesson of this debate should be the absurdity of excluding naturalized citizens from the presidency in the first place. Categorically excluding immigrants from the presidency is a form of arbitrary discrimination based on place of birth (or, in a few cases, parentage), which is ultimately little different from discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Both ethnicity and place of birth are morally arbitrary characteristics which do not, in themselves, determine a person's competence or moral fitness for high political office.
The "natural born" citizen requirement was originally inserted into the Constitution because some of the Founders feared that European royalty or nobles might move to the United States, get elected to the presidency, and then use the office to advance the interests of their houses. Whatever the merits of this concern back in the 1780s, it is hardly a plausible scenario today.
One can argue that immigrants have less knowledge of the country and its customs, and might make worse presidents for that reason. But that problem is surely addressed by the constitutional requirement that a candidate for president must have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. As a practical matter, anyone who attains the political connections and public recognition needed to make a serious run for the presidency is likely to have at least as much knowledge of the US and American politics as most serious native-born candidates do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Noting that I agree with the Founding States that the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and state militias (2.2.1) needs to be a natural born citizen, please consider the following.
The main reason that concern for who the next president will be is important these days mainly because low-information voters do not understand the following about the federal governments constitutionally limited powers. The federal governments power to run the US Mail Service (1.8.7) aside, it is the states that have the 10th Amendment-protected lions share of constitutional authority to serve the people where domestic policy is concerned, not the feds.
In other words, probably most citizens do not understand that the main reasons that corrupt politicians get themselves elected to the federal government is this. Such politicians not only want to control 10th Amendment-protected state powers which the corrupt feds have been stealing from the states for many generations, but more importantly they want to fill their pockets with their ”fair share” of the tsunami of illegal federal taxes that go into DC, such taxes arguably stolen state revenues.
In fact, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the following. Not only is Conress prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, basically any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, but also that powers not delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution are prohibited to the feds.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” - United States v. Butler, 1936.
Remember in November !
So if patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they will also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president.
In fact, note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Were you present at his conception? Is his biological father really an American Citizen or could he actually have been fathered by an Italian waiter.
Has Donald Trump released his DNA records?
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.8 USC 1405
This was passed in 1952.
So here is an act of congress that, as of 1952, makes a person born in Hawaii in 1920 (Hawaii wasn't even a state) a citizen of the US at birth. The person goes 32 years not at American, then poof, in 1952 he's been an American citizen his whole life!
Law is like magic. It can do anything. FWIW, this law is PERFECTLY constitutional. I leave it to the reader to state why, and what power of Congress is being exercised.
This is being pushed because the Rats fear what Trump will do to them and their fraudulent alien impostor, Obunga!
Could they? They have thanks to the laziness of some not to Vet the contestants and others to not caring to educate themselves. The Progressives who control our educational system and continue to dumb down the American people have certainly taken an iron hold on certain of the citizens. unwilling to stand by the Constitution as it is written, and unwilling to do a little research and study for themselves, they are all too willing to take the word of progressives who have one thing in common, to destroy the constitution and the USA so that we have no Sovereignty and can no longer make our own decisions but must bow down and obey what is dictated to us by those elites who have attained control of our county.
I thought I answered that already. The answer I gave before was "no" and the answer I give now is "no."
Those people obtain citizenship via a naturalization statute. If it wasn't for the statute, they wouldn't be a citizen. Their citizenship depends on a statute. That is the legal definition of "naturalized."
SCOTUS cases are so clear on this definition, that to question it is to be a kook. There are hundreds of cases. None of them deviate from this formula. It is settled law, until SCOTUS decides to settle it some other way. It hasn't changed in 200 years.
See Rogers v. Belle of 1971 for application of the predecessor statute that makes Cruz a citizen. Belle was naturalized. Cruz was naturalized. Neither on of them went through a naturalization process, they got naturalized by operation a law, automatically, just like the Hawaiians and people in Guam.
Anyway, all of this contradicts your contention that, "The ONLY damn thing 'natural born citizen' means is that the person is an American citizen immediately upon their birth."
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and you are certainly free to adhere to the formula you stated so succinctly. You and I disagree. I have evidence to support my argument, and you have none, other than the word of Cruz, Katyal, Clement, Somin, and a host of others who are not citing the statutes, and are not citing the relevant SCOTUS precedents.
That is YOUR “Opinion!”
Probably my fault if it comes off that way. I am trying to be as clear as I know how. I am really and sincerely engaged in good faith argument. At this moment, you and I have opposite positions on the operation of law that attaches the word "naturalized" to a citizen. I don't want communication breakdown, but sometimes that happens.
I agree. They are all liars.
.
The clear facts speak for themselves.
.
IMHO it’s time to get rid of FR's commie-sympathizing anti-Constitutionalist trolls.
That is (a) rational, and (b) reasonable.
This is too big to fail, by now.
Settled law, just like global warming is settled science -- except this law question has to "burn out" and get through the election before the people wake up to how massively they are being lied to.
You are one stupid person. You also have the Democrat’s system down pat. Accuse, accuse, accuse, and TRY to keep the adversary on the Defensive. You are a bloody fool if you think your 2nd grade tactics will work with me. My loyalty to my country is not the subject of this thread. Cruz’s eligibility for the president is. I have tried to be patient but I will tolerate no more of your Bull.
Please explain how it is anti-Constitutional to want to use the amendment procedure the Founders put into the Constitution for exactly the purposes the Founder put into the Constitution.
Yes, I know that some laws RETROACTIVELY make people an American citizen from birth (or from the date of the law’s enactment). Such people can be made American citizens, but they can NEVER be “natural born citizens” since they were not American citizens at the time they were born. We both agree to that.
Let’s have this discussion step by step —and try our best not to see “squirrels” along the way to distract our discussion. If two people were born in Guam IN 1953 (ACCORDING TO THE LAW YOU POSTED) to American citizens who were citizens of Guam, are those two people American citizens at the moment of their birth?
Please answer ONLY that question at this time so we do not distract ourselves. There will be time later for other discussions and other questions/answers.
Yes. I would add that the parents do not have to be US citizens. They can be citizens of any country. The parents are required to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That is not the same as US citizen.
The NBC rule is the strongest rule practicably devisable.
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.