Posted on 10/20/2018 1:57:10 PM PDT by Jack Black
PDF 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.” 1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at harvardlawreview.org ...
*someone’s doing the oxy*
Only a matter of time.
When asked about this publicly Ted Cruz had a very poor answer. In my opinion, his reply should have been something like:
“This is a complicated issue because the language both in the Constitution and other parts of the law is, despite what some advocates of particular formulas or legal positions say, unclear. It is something we need to clarify. As president, I will do that. It needs to be done. But, you may rest assured that I have no national allegiance to any nation except the United States. I am an American. It is the only county I want to be a citizen of.”
Cruz didn’t do that. Instead, he just brushed the question off and I think that was a huge mistake and I do think it hurt his campaign. Cruz should have made clarifying this an issue and worn it like a badge.
Though honestly, Ted was born in Canada, to an American mother with a Cuban father and lived as a young child in Canada. I don’t see how he can meet a non-excessively convoluted standard.
Nikki Haley, I can see a case being made for.
The Gabbard woman, no she falls into the same category as Ted Cruz.
John McPain, US citizen parent in the military born overseas, I have no problem with (We’re putting politics aside here) Assuming he was ACTUALLY born in Hawaii, not Kenya Barrack Obama has a better case than Ted Cruz.
Given the standard, some on FR use Barry Goldwater was ineligible because when he was born Arizona was a territory, not a state.
Good enough for me.
It’s easy...If there is a doubt, they’re not.
.
Someone is not reading the amendment.
.
Let Donald Jr., Eric, or Ivanka Trump run for President and they'll be debating this on CNN. "Maybe the Birthers have a point! We need to explore this!"
Yes, the authors of the 14th meant that children born to tourists from Paris, on a weekend vacation in NY, become U.S. citizens. Because, you know...it’s right there in the Amendment. /bong hit.
I’d prefer it would just get settled one way or another by SCOTU, but I think your proposed definition is practically unworkable. As an example I give you a riddle to solve for my son: born on U.S. to two citizen parents but still would not qualify as a natural born citizen under your standard, as he also qualified (and received) a foreign passport at birth. How?
Cruz was born a US citizen by the definition held by SCOTUS early in the 19th century, when it was composed of mostly founders.
The parent in the SCOTUS case was the Father, but SCOTUS has recently affirmed that there is no difference between Mother and Father.
Argghh!!! you’re giving me a headache. I categorize the “what determines the qualifications to run for president?” completely out of my control, so there’s no reason for me to worry about it.
More to the point, as we found out with Obama, if someone wants to take it to court, the courts will not touch it.
.
Read the amendment.
It is as plain as day.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
Exactly right.
.
The actual evidence is strong that Obama was born in Seattle.
The question is did he relinquish it in Indonesia.
Can you “relinquish” natural born citizenship?
.
You can relinquish citizenship by accepting citizenship of the country of your residence.
The authors were crystal clear on what they meant. They’re on record as to what they meant. Why would you search for a different meaning? Especially when that ‘meaning’ would remove congresses role in naturalization and would naturalize children to those here on tourist visas under the 14th. An amendment which was passed solely for stateless slaves.
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.