Posted on 01/24/2016 1:04:47 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I usually enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns thanks to her acerbic wit and gutsy grit. But, being human, she has flaws, among which is a penchant to suspend rationality when advocating for her flavor of the year in Republican presidential candidates. In past years, it was Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. Now, thanks mainly to his tough stance on immigration, it's Donald Trump.
This infatuation has caused her to write some ridiculous things about the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the presidency. Her use of the term "naturalization" is, frankly, unworthy of her status as a law school graduate. A recently published article from the Harvard Law Review holds that: "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase 'natural born citizen' has a specific meaning - namely, someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time." Cruz meets this requirement.
There are only two paths to citizenship: automatically at birth, or after one's birth through some legal process such as immigration and naturalization. The plain meaning of "natural born citizen" is understood to be a person who was a citizen "naturally" by reason of birth, as differentiated from obtaining citizenship later in life. In 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Newton Schwartz, an 85-year-old lawyer, has filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Texas challenging Cruz' eligibility. Schwartz told Bloomberg News that, while he's not linked to any particular presidential campaign, he will probably support Democrat/Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Nice company you're in, Annie!
Legally, this man has no "standing" to file this action. Only another presidential candidate could do so. If Trump actually thinks Cruz is ineligible, let him file suit and request expedited consideration which, along with any subsequent appeals, would surely be decided on an emergency basis. Otherwise, let's move on to real issues!
Free does not denote citizenship, which the civil rights act of 1866 granted...
Why would they grant citizenship legally if being free means the same thing...?
Acts of Congress alter the meaning of the constitution all the time...
You have to have room temperature IQ to think congress doesn’t....
US v. Wong Kim Ark was a legal travesty by a court packed with corporate lawyers. Read the dissent by Chief Justice Fuller. It's a landmark of legal scholarship by comparison.
Soil doesn't impart culture. Parentage does.
“Free does not denote citizenship, which the civil rights act of 1866 granted...”
If that were the case, then why the 14th amendment?
“The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.”
“The pretend is as good as the fact, a naturalized citizen is every bit as much a citizen, as a citizen who was not naturalized.”
And, as Coulter pointed out, the Supreme Court affirmed that in 1964, but excluded the right to become president.
“Are you going to ignore current law or stick with a law written in 1790...?
I’m leaning you are myopic....”
You can let that myopic thing go. I will stick with the Constitution as written. Why do you think “current laws” are sometimes declared unconstitutional? “Current law” can not alter the Constitution.
the 1952 congressional act I have posted superseded the 1790 statute.
Both were passed by congress the 1952 act did not require the father to be a citizen.
So Cruz IS a NBC.
SCOTUS affirmed it hundreds of times! There is no such thing as a 2nd class citizen.
I have known this most of my life. It is NOT a new thing. And Cruz's claim to fame is to follow the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution, yet he demands an exemption for himself.... IF he will two time the Constitution for self serving purposes, who else will he two time to continue this pattern... I cannot ignore what I have known most of my life.
I find it extremely disturbing the level of willing ignorance... Natural born is a birthright only US citizens parents can pass by birth of their children in the United States.
IF the body of the Supremes who devised a right to kill the unborn, is the standard setter, why would any sane person think they give a hoot about the Constitution...
REALITY CHECK!!!!!
That is your opinion. I don’t think that having a President that was a citizen of another country until he started his run for President was what the founders intended.
...THIS is what you’re reduced to?
GET HELP.
Well since he has no problem cheating on his wives why should he have a problem cheating at everything else he does.
I really want it explained to me when FR became okay with supporting for President a man who cheats on his wife. I thought we were better than that.
“Both were passed by congress the 1952 act did not require the father to be a citizen.”
Can you not understand? Congress can control NATURALIZATION. Naturalization does not change or control Constitutional mandates. In fact, the Supreme Court dropped the part requiring the father to be a citizen around 1930. But it was for purposes of citizenship, not natural born citizenship. Congress can not confer natural born citizenship unless it changes the Constitution.
“SCOTUS affirmed it hundreds of times! There is no such thing as a 2nd class citizen.”
In 1964, the Supreme Court recognized that only natural born citizens could be president, and naturalized citizens could not.
This is devolving into insanity.
You can say that again! What is that 1964 case, by the way?
Excellent post.
Natural born status can be bestowed only by the parents (by blood and by soil). It is an act of grace, legally speaking.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
"(a) A person who has become a national by naturalization shall lose his nationality by --"SCOTUS held the act to be an unconstitutional stripping of naturalized citizenship."(1) having a continuous residence for three years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, except as provided in section 353 of this title, [Footnote 1] whether such residence commenced before or after the effective date of this Act. . . ." [citing The Immigration and Nationality' Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 269, 8 U.S.C. S:S: 1101, 1484, provides by S: 352] ...
The Solicitor General makes his case along the following lines.
Over a period of many years, this Government has been seriously concerned by special problems engendered when naturalized citizens return for a long period to the countries of their former nationalities. It is upon this premise that the argument derives that Congress, through its power over foreign relations, has the power to deprive such citizens of their citizenship.
Other nations, it is said, frequently attempt to treat such persons as their own citizens, thus embroiling the United States in conflicts when it attempts to afford them protection. It is argued that expatriation is an alternative to withdrawal of diplomatic protection. It is also argued that Congress reasonably can protect against the tendency of three years' residence in a naturalized citizen's former homeland to weaken his or her allegiance to this country. The argument continues that it is not invidious discrimination for Congress to treat such naturalized citizens differently from the manner in which it treats native-born citizens, and that Congress has the right to legislate with respect to the general class without regard to each factual violation.
A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance.
The dissent is a good read.
Here appellant has been away from the country for 10 years, has married a foreign citizen, has continuously lived with him in her native land for eight years, has borne four sons who are German nationals, and admits that she has no intention to return to this country. She wishes to retain her citizenship on a standby basis for her own benefit in the event of trouble. There is no constitutional necessity for Congress to accede to her wish.
Sometimes we cannot have what we want, fact of life. Informed citizenry do not fall for deceptive practices. We ignore the Constitution, we are no better than those that abuse it for their self serving purposes.
Esau sold his birthright for a ‘red’ bowl of pottage (lentils) God made sure he lost his blessing. And as it Written God hated Esau.
TEG act defines Cruz as a citizen not a naturalized citizen.
You choose to not understand.
Under the law all that is required for natural born status is for one of your parents to be a citizen. That’s it.
Or if you are born in the us neither parent has to be a citizen.
It is not about “my” opinion. It is what the founders intended. A child born overseas to an NBC has all the benefits that you do. To muck this up and bang on this dead horse is simply to avoid answering tough substantive questions. God forbid el Trumpo has to answer one of those questions as a 6th grader instead of a 4th!.
Make America Great Again is a bumper sticker not a policy!
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.