Posted on 01/30/2016 11:10:12 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
...
The first thought that comes to mind is that Trump keeps coming back to this attack against Cruz for a couple of reasons. The first is that he cannot make attacks on Cruz's record of standing up for conservative principles the centerpiece of his strategy because that leaves him open to greater scrutiny of his own liberal record...
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
But nevertheless your quotes show how in Britain you could be natural-born even if you were born outside of the country. They put some ifs and buts on there, but our Constitution didn’t have those.
British Statute of 1730:
[A]ll Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively ... are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.
It doesn’t matter which Naturalization law happens to be operative — the natural born concept is defined in the 1790 version and is locked into the Constitution.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea...”
I think that would refer to the many covered by the law. However, you have to add in the fact, and Levin evidently covered it up, that when the Constitution was written, citizenship descended through the father exclusively. That was their mindset. So if a child was born overseas and the father was not a citizen, the child would not be a citizen. As for naturalization purposes, that held sway until it was changed by the Supreme Court in 1930. (The Constitution gives Congress the exclusively authority to control immigration and naturalization).
Also, according to original intent, a man who was a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen born abroad of citizen parents, but who never resided in the United States would be incapable if transferring his citizenship to his child born abroad within the framework of the natural born clause in the Constitution. How much less then, than a foreign national who just happened to live a few years in the United States, leaves, and fathers a child in another country? That is laughable.
There are a few posters here who have done extensive research on Supreme Court cases and other cases where natural born was defined as a person born from two citizen parents.
As you likely know, Trumps mother was naturalized as a US citizen four years before his birth. Both parents are citizens. What Cruz suggested, threw out there, insinuated, was that a person would have to be a third generation US citizen to qualify. Not even the strictest of Constitutional “originalist” have even hinted at such a exclusion.
After the hundreds of hours of study I have done over the years I have never run across even the remotest suggestion that third generation citizenship is a requirement.
It was clumsy on Teds part.
Red State bases itself on the original meaning of red: Marxist-Leninism.
Sorry, no. British law in the 1700s clearly states children of British citizens born outside of Britain were natural-born citizens with no different rights from their parents.
“Natural-born” as a phrase implies NOTHING about geography or location. If your parents are citizens, you’re natural-born no matter where you were born.
So you’re afraid of Steven Colbert, thanks for letting us know you’re a coward.
If you don’t think the dems are going to use Cruz’s eligibility, you’re blind.
Go vote for Bush, maybe you’ll feel safe and cozy.
Oh I agree, it should be a civil discussion.
But how can someone have a civil discussion about policy differences (liberal Trump vs conservative Cruz) when you have the Trump folks, including Trump himself, bringing up nonsense like this NBC junk.
He was born to a US citizen who was living abroad. By the definition you are presenting, the founding fathers, children of folks in the military, even other candidates who have run in the past would not be eligible/have been eligible.
This is just a distraction from the truth that Donald J. Trump has a record which shows his true allegiance to the establishment and its anti-constitution policies.
Born June 14, 1946 in Queens, New York, NY (Jus Soli)
Parents were
Frederick Christ Trump, born October 11, 1905 in Queens, NY, died June 1999 in Queens, NY
Mary Ann MacLeod, born May 10, 1912 in SCOTLAND, died August 7, 2000 in Queens, NY. Arrived in US October 5, 1935. Naturalized as a US Citizen March 10, 1942.
Both parents were US Citizens at the time of his birth (Jus Sanguinis)
Donald Trump was born in the US to two US Citizen parents so is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Like you said, a father was enough to confer citizenship at the time of the writing. The mother wasn’t considered. So you definitely didn’t need two parents to be citizens. Obviously under modern case law, we can no longer have different legal standards for a mother vs. father, so either one or the other is enough to confer citizenship on the child when the child is born outside of the country.
No one has suggested that but opponents of an originalist interpretation. It’s a logical impossibility for one thing, there never would have been any natural born citizens if parents were required to be.
Cruz's parents were not both citizens, only the mother was.
Oh. I didn’t realize that we are operating under British law from the 1700’s. I just assumed that, being in the US and all, that we would operate under the US Constitution. My mistake. I defer to your superior legal knowledge and experience.
Is 14 years really that substantial? The way people go on here about potential foreign allegiance, I highly doubt the anti-Cruz-birthers would ever agree to a mere 14 years residency to qualify for President. They would probably demand no one spent more than one consecutive year overseas. If someone was born in Texas, then moved to Britain for 40 years, then came back here for 14 years and ran for President, under your interpretation of "intent," the founders should've been totally paranoid that person was a foreign agent. Yet they left in this relatively minimal 14-year requirement for U.S. residency.
Well, that is certainly a good attempt at 'civilized' discussion
You go back to original intent, and I’m telling you what the phrase natural-born meant back in the 1700s. It was not implying a requirement based on location or geography of birth.
And hey Canned Spam GGG, Looky here looky here ... The extremely accurate metrics done by Microsoft says Trump is going to decimate and crush Teddy and Rubio
"Microsoft's impressively accurate prediction tool says Trump will crush the primary elections
Next Monday morning, the polls open that begin the process of deciding who will become the two main contenders in the 2016 US presidential election.
Can you guess who they'll be? Microsoft can."
http://www.techinsider.io/microsoft-predicts-the-outcome-of-2016-presidential-primaries-2016-1
Na na na na hey hey goodbye...
One citizen parent is enough.
Of course there is a Constitutional right to become President for all natural-born citizens, e.g. Trump, Cruz.
I don’t know if he knew. It seemed so strange to me for his mother to write her name as “Wilson”, on Ted’s birth certificate, as she was presumably married at the time to Mr. Cruz. Maybe they were not married, I don’t know.
Ted will not explain anything. He has only said that his mother filed for something-or-other with an acronym name on the form that made him a natural born citizen. No. That can not fly. It would mean his mother filed for his dual citizenship, as I understand it.
After all, in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Cruz were not eligible for natural born status for their offspring, because neither parent were on government assignment, or military or foreign service employees, or serving in any position of service to their country that would justify NBC for their offspring.
Rather, I read where both parents were Canadian citizens, by virtue of their voting record there, which requires citizenship to vote.
Ted needs to explain this stuff, given his incessant harping for the strictest interpretation of the US Constitution and his known “originalist” views on it’s contents.
(Except for when he needs the Constitution to be “flexible” for serving his own interests.)
I just don’t approve of the confusion on this issue. Our government should have settled this a long time ago, because in the case of Obama, the gap in enforcement of the citizenship requirements may have cost us our country.
It’s called lack of both the investigation and the application of the law.
As I said, you are the expert on this. I marvel at your ability to cite the law, and how it has been faithfully applied from the 1700's to today, without any wavering on the part of the courts. I am just, literally, in awe.
No, she doesn’t “fail”. That test applies if ONLY the mother were US citizen. Trump would have been US citizen through his father and by native birth regardless. His mother didn’t have to “pass” her citizenship to him - he was born with US citizenship. So, how long she was a citizen did not matter in the least as long as it was prior to Trumps birth.
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.