Huckabee on ABC News, Video:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/huckabee-ted-cruzs-eligibility-problematic-36301903
Look at the 14th amendment and what it states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
stating it another way adds clarity:
all persons born in the United states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
AND
all persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
The 14th amendment makes note of two classes of citizens here: citizens born of the soil and citizens created by an act of naturalization or citizens of other than the soil and it says that they are both citizens of the United States But, importantly, nowhere does its language specifically act upon article II, section I, clause 5 by making mention of a Natural Born Citizen which it surely must do if it intends to affect Article II, section I, clause 5.
In fact, the 14th amendment has validated the opinion that a citizen not born of the soil, is not a Natural Born Citizen by specifically calling such a person a citizen as opposed to a Natural Born Citizen, for our founders and the authors of the 14th amendment perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and we can assume that no words adopted into the constitution were either used or omitted without intent or perfect understanding.
By omitting the words Natural Born Citizen, the meaning of which the authors were perfectly familiar with they have acknowledged that a citizen not born in the United states is not a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve as POTUS.
It will no doubt be mentioned that it also calls a Citizen by right of Soil a Citizen. But there is no discrepancy here as a Natural Born Citizen clearly is, by default, a citizen. A citizen, on the other hand, is not by default, a Natural Born Citizen.
It is also worth making note of the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
From United States v. Wong Kim Ark, we know what this means. It refers to full and unencumbered allegiance to the sovereign i.e. the United States. In this way, the children of foreign ambassadors who, through, happenstance, are born on US soil while their parents are acting in an official capacity of a foreign sovereignty, are not held to be citizens of the United states at the time of their birth upon US soil.
So, in summary, article 2, section 1, clause 5 specifically denies the right to be POTUS to any but a Natural Born Citizen and the 14th amendment does not act to amend that.
We are, again, left to the historical records and common law understandings to ascertain what Article II, section I, clause 5 was referring to.
I have already shown that natural born citizenship is derived from the common law understanding and language and that it specifically refers to persons physically born in the country and that the Katyal and Clement paper that Ted Cruz bases his own opinion on misrepresents the common law understanding by using a few ancient and limited statutory references as being indicative of the common law understanding in its entirety.
There is ample evidence throughout United States v. Wong Kim Ark to confirm this and I have stated much of it already. So let us go back further, closer to the time of the adoption of the constitution, closer to a time when common law understandings were better understood by all Americans.
we see clear evidence of this Jus soli basis of natural born citizenship in Justice Curtis’s dissenting opinion in the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision whereby he states:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Again, as in United States v. Wong Kim Ark we see the clear truth of the matter. Our founders perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and had a perfect and specific understanding of what it meant to be a Natural Born Citizen: it was a person born in the country and they, for good reason, intended that none but such a person would be eligible for the office of President and they incorporated that intent into the constitution. No Act of congress can change this. No judicial hearing can change this. No statement by Ted Cruz or his supporters can change this. Only a constitutional amendment can change this.
How does he do that? Sue himself?
GFY, Huckabee. You can’t make it on the level playing field, so your idea is to place a false handicap and a time and money wasting burden on the guy who CAN.
Despicable SOB. I have hated that phony Huckabee since the first time he ran.
Donald Trump should put up or shut up, since he is so concerned about Cruz’s eligibility for POTUS.
This such a nothing issue but if the Huckster (who tries to come off as such a priestly man but is really demonic)is so concerned about the status of Cruz then he should file a law suit himself. What a piece of crap. No wonder he was on Fox with the rest of that turncoat New York crap.
Cruz's issue arises because he was born in Canada, and at birth could have three countries claim him. Canada by natural and positive (act of parliament) law of Canada, the US only by positive (act of Congress) law of the US, and maybe Cuba by operation of positive law of Cuba.
If Cuba had a "citizen of one parent, born abroad" law, similar to the one in that operates in the US does, then Cuba's claim on Cruz was EXACTLY OF THE SAME NATURE as the US's claim, at the time of birth. Is Cruz a NBC of Cuba? Hardly.
Not of the US either.
Huckster should go play with his homosexual animal toe tying son.
Not joking.
Let the Supreme Court decide. Just like they did with these cases:
Gibbons v Ogden
Dred Scott
Griswold v. Connecticut
Lochner v. New York
Korematsu v. United States
Lawrence v. Texas
Plessy v. Ferguson
Roe v. Wade
Casey v. Planned Parenthood
King v Burwell
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Obergefell v. Hodges
We don’t care what you think Huckster.
The courts brought us obamacare, roe v wade, etc. They can’t be trusted.
unfortunately....I think the drip drip effect of this makes Huckabee correct. I assumed this was a non-issue. But I don’t think so now. Which is exasperating.
Huckabee’s stance on this will do Cruz no favors in Iowa.
BTTT