Posted on 11/03/2016 6:11:37 PM PDT by Kaslin
“He wants a viable future in politics.
That is all this is about.”
I disagree. “All this” is about defeating Clinton and electing Trump.
Coco Solo was a United States Navy facility, which operated a submarine base and a naval air station, that was established 6 May 1918.
US Senator John McCain was born in 1936 at a small Navy hospital at Coco Solo Naval Air station.
I never said Senators must be natural born citizens.
Of course you did about 4 month ago. I have a great memory
But wasn’t it not so long ago that Cruz was with her? [This is real; not photoshopped.]
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/03/uniparty-ready-for-hillary/
Post your proof liar
Ted Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate, and Canada has never been a US territory. Ted Cruz knows darn well his parents did NOT bequeath him ‘natural born’ US citizenship. That is why he tried to get Mitch the Senate to resolve him eligible.. NOT even Mitch the Senate would cross that line.
Then your fair haired intellectual child spent ten months and two days this year, failing to try to defeat Clinton and get Trump elected.
Where’s that eMail from the super dud?
The proof is in the pudding. That is, if Trump *does* offer him a powerful position, one worth leaving the senate for.
Do not underestimate the value of having a universally hated hatchet man to do the dirty work. Much of the venom that would be directed at Trump would instead be directed at Cruz; and those opposed to what Cruz was doing would likely try to appeal to Trump to get Cruz to back off.
This would be very valuable, because it would let Trump gauge how strong the opposition is, and who is behind it. If it is too strong, he could redirect Cruz to attack more vulnerable targets.
.
Your comments are massively ignorant.
Cruz has had the “independents” from the beginning. They are the real conservatives that are ashamed to be called Republicans, due to the behavior of the neo-con leadership cruds.
Not only did he "mislead" people in this election by not declaring he was a dual citizen until late in his bid for president, he also ran and was elected to the Senate as a dual citizen.
I worked hard with a lot of other people including Sarah Palin to get him elected to the Senate. If I would have known he wasn't a complete American citizen but shared his citizenship with another country, I would not have helped him.
Very disingenuous of him in both races.
He should have denounced his Canadian citizenship years ago when he decided to get into politics in this country instead of his native country of Canada.
We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.
The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”
The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:
[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent. Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth. Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’ And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964, and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.
Now read and weep
Written by those who want to broaden the true meaning and undermine the protection of the clause.
Who wrote this donkey dung? The founders did NOT give authority to anyone, including Congress to alter, or adulterate the ‘natural born’ requirement. Furthermore, there is NOT one shred of evidence that Ted Cruz’s mother was still a US citizen when she birth her boy on Canadian soil. Ted Cruz’s father did NOT become an American citizen until 2005.
Post your proof liar
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed when they realized their error.
That was written by two establishment lawyers who want the Constitution changed without amending it.
I have live the majority of my life knowing what the 'founder's intent' was in 'natural born' citizenship... Never thought those that claim to follow the 'original intent' be the very ones bastardizing 'we the peoples' Constitution. But they have... and look at the price we got to pay for letting Obama hold that office. Totally stuck on stupid.
Ted is dead to me.
Was that a picture of him looking at Goldman Sachs in the distance? ;-)
“Your comments are massively ignorant.”
Wow. I’m ignorant?
When the grownups talk about Independents in the general election, we are not talking about your #neverTrump ex Cruz supporters, we are talking about voters who don’t identify with a party and/or are not registered as either Republican or Democrat, but fall somewhere in between. This is real basic stuff in political discourse, which shouldn’t have to be explained.
There are millions of Independents and they are leaning heavily toward Trump.
Cruz has zero curb appeal with Independents, and with Democrat crossovers, and without these two non Republican voting blocks, there are simply not enough Republican voters to elect a president.
Get it this time?
If you don’t live in Texas there is no need for you to vote for him when he runs for reelection as a senator.
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.