National Review Online: The Cruz Birthers

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343914/cruz-birthers-eliana-johnson ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.

Snip~

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”

Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization

[Kenny Bunk]

Interesting thread. Cards on the table sort of thing. However, the only thing we are demonstrating here is that
This IS a valid question.

So then, how to settle it? The Obama People unilaterally deciding he's eligible? Civil War? What? IMNVHO, duking Constitutional issues out on the street, the battlefield, or even on FReep is not appropriate in a democratic Republic governed by a Constitution.

If the courts do not act responsibly, especially the SCOTUS, and either support Team Obama, or those opposed on eligibility, the only recourse left would be acquiescence, or rebellion. Within the time left for the second term, the ruling need not even address Obama, but such doubts about the next round of candidates can not remain.

[MHGinTN]

The absolute lying is clear proof of whom JW works for. And his continued lying seems to be condoned at FR presently.

Think about what it means when someone uses the term 'birther' as a perjorative: they are consciously insulting you, and they do not believe the Constitution is clear and/or doesn't matter where little barry bastard boy is at issue. Most who take the opportunity to call you a birther have also seen the evidernce that the birth number little basatrd barry is suing is fraudulent, as well as his SS number and his selective service registration card. But they want to portect the lying sonofabitc h at all cost so they feel no hesitation to insult those who question little barry's bastard birth.

[Spaulding]

"Another tidbit"/p>

http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstanley

Thanks again Ray. It is noteworthy that so many whose lives and success depend upon freedom to be entrepreneurial do not see how their success depends upon the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Stanley a bit engineer and a bit lawyer, doesn't seem to understand that being ruled by a Castro or Chavez will constrain his freedoms too.

He is plugged into GE, Nolo, and certainly, Soros’ political empire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuiytrzxFsE&feature=player_embedded His role at findlaw seems incongruous, since Findlaw didn't corrupt cases citing Minor v. Happersett. A guess is that Findlaw’s revenue is based upon being a trustworthy source, and is fee-based. There are other fee-based services, competing and waiting in the wings. If he asked, they didn't dare; but he probably knows better than to have asked.

Stanley is an achiever who is helping cement tyranny, and must assume he will benefit from it. Unlike Obama, he has never known hardship. Obama learned about hardship when he decided to become an American Black to further his political ends (a description from Khalid al-Mansour, lawyer to Alwaleed bin-Talal, Obama’s mentor). Of course, Obama lived in High Park, near Louis Farrakhan, and never wanted for anything, but he saw enough to help cement his future as a disciplined con man.

The technology Stanley is pushing is trivial. His market is repackaging legal information, probably because LexisNexis is too expensive for many law students, and for many small law firms. His edge is his energy as a marketer, since few lawyers know much about the technology. He sells his connections to the government, many of which com through Malamud. Using Soros’ money, he has made lots of connections. Of course, free access to government documents is not a big revenue generator, which may warrant a hard look at Soros Center for American Progress underwriting. Did Jusia get Tarp money? I'm betting that many of his potential partners, knowing how important it is to regarded as trustworthy, are steering away from him.

The Berkeley Professor, Robert Berring, has Tim's number. Would you want to establish a business relationship with someone willing to put his clients at risk by intentionally corrupting his key product? Their businesses depend upon our laws, still based upon a foundation of The Constitution. He is involved in subverting them. Obama will be gone some day, and the wreckage will be substantial. Stanley has damaged his brand.

It amazes me that Stanley's career, one free legal web site after another, has apparently not been thwarted by his willing corruption of legal documents he secured from the US government. Any lawyer who cited case law from one of Stanley's sites would be taking the chance of losing the case for his client, which could end a career, or at least, be very costly. Stanley knew this. He chose to be guided by his progressive political affiliations, which have probably rewarded him generously. Our society still sees lying as wrong, unlike Muslims who ordain lying in the name of religious domination. Stanley isn't a Muslim?

[Seizethecarp]

As you frequently lament, SCOTUS could have taken the NBC issue up, perhaps with one of Donofrio’s cases. But the riots scenario was very real and they already had been slammed for Bush v. Gore and accused of “selecting” Bush.

And what if they had declared Barry ineligible in early January 2009? POTUS Biden? POTUS ineligible McCain?

The two inaugurations of Barry have set precedent that one US citizen parent claimed to have been born on US soil is sufficient. Rubio and Jindal have no US citizen parents and Cruz wasn’t US born so none of them have he same fact pattern as Barry and are thus risky and open to Democrat “birthers” and GOP primary challenger “birthers.”

I see Arpaio’s efforts as being the last best chance of getting Barry removed, but how many hundreds of millions of dollars and how many thugs would Barry have available if needed to kill Arpaio’s investigation?

[MHGinTN]

Squashing an investigation in itself leaves a trail. The bastard-in-chief is a democrip, so he probably believes he is above the niggling laws. But eventually the criminality goes right back to the lying sonofabitch and his fraudulent profile.

[Smokeyblue]

Yep. Our hypothetical Jewish citizen is a seventh-generation patriotic American. Never even been outside his home state. Which is Oklahoma.

But he’s Jewish, as we pointed out, so he has the birthright to dual citizenship. US and Israel. Not that he’s ever exercised it.

Now, birthers would tell this man that he’s not eligible. And I think that’s sheer nonsense.

I don't see the problem here.

If he's born on American soil to American citizen parents and hasn't exercised a "birthright to" another country (Israel/Ireland) then he's a natural born citizen.

America is the first and only claimant upon him. Israel/Ireland have an open door to him. That's different. Should he choose to exercise that gift of an automatic/dual citizenship he can but then he's got divided loyalties and is not a natural born citizen any longer.

By your logic, if he flies to Israel/Ireland as a US citizen for vacation he could be drafted if a war broke out there even if he hasn't exercised the option to dual citizenship. Israel/Ireland can't make him accept the gift.

Is that what you are saying?

Now, birthers would tell this man that he’s not eligible. And I think that’s sheer nonsense.

No bithers have not told him that. You presume that.

[noinfringers2]

The complication exists because the Founders specifically and explicitly set into the Constitution, for reasons of allegiance, that there must be a different kind of ‘citizen’ for POTUSA than for Congresspersons i.e. a natural born citizen’ for POTUSA. The difference of wording is embedded in the Constitution but it is the understanding of why the Founders would set such a difference that makes the issue complicated for some people.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

BUT, nowhere does he fit the criteria! If he HAD fit the criteria then it would have been ruled so. It WASN'T ruled so and that means the only place he fits the criteria is in the cranial pans of those wishing it WERE so.

They only rule on the question before them. Whether he was a natural born citizen wasn't the question before them. BUT they could certainly find that he fit the criterion for NBC and use that to conclude that he was a citizen, which WAS the question before them. Why do you think they spent so much time discussing what an NBC was? Just to say after all that, "But he's really not one of those, but he is a citizen for some other reasons, which we won't tell you"?

I don't wish it were so--I don't really care much one way or the other. But it IS so, and that's what I do care about.

You're the presiding SCOTUS judge and you don't find WITH the criteria. Your rulings should confirm the criteria, not contravene the criteria as that ruling did.

The ruling didn't contravene the criteria, obviously, or the dissent wouldn't have made the objection it did.

[edge919]

Almost edge919. The “Act of 1790” was entirely rescinded beginning with the 1795 Nationality Act.

There's no "almost" about it. I gave the direct quote from Minor v. Happersett. It says what it says. I can't change that. If there's an argument, it's with those justices. Here's the specific part of the quote that refutes what you're claiming:

These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.

It appears to me that it's still acknowledging that "in substance" children born to citizen fathers abroad are conisdered to be natural-born citizens. The court is looking at this as being declaratory of natural law and not being an act of naturalization.

[Tau Food]

f the courts do not act responsibly, especially the SCOTUS, and either support Team Obama, or those opposed on eligibility, the only recourse left would be acquiescence, or rebellion. Within the time left for the second term, the ruling need not even address Obama, but such doubts about the next round of candidates can not remain.

The qualifications of the next round of candidates will be studied and ruled upon by the voters and their electors in 2016. In 57 straight presidential elections, voters/electors have approved the qualifications of every president who has been elected. Never has the Supreme Court ever even hinted that it would ever attempt to seize the power to overturn a decision rendered by voters/electors regarding a candidate's qualifications.

Trust God, the voters and their electors. Defend our Constitution from the crackpot statists who would, if permitted, impose a judicial tyranny on America.

[Jeff Winston]

You are a v sad person to watch. You have bought hook, line & sinker into the modern liberal mindset, & you cannot imagine the Framers not thinking the exact same way.

To look and see what the Founders and their generation actually said, and agree that that's what they said, is the liberal mindset?

To refuse to misrepresent the Constitution, and to speak up when other people do, is the liberal mindset?

To insist on the truth rather than a convenient fantasy is the liberal mindset?

I just don't think so.

[Jeff Winston]

Your claim that the common law of England is in every state the same in regard to the basics of citizenship is irrelevant. Tell it to the US Supreme Court. They're the ones who accepted the argument made in Lynch v. Clarke.

[Jeff Winston]

I suppose there are two different versions of “conservatism.

One actually has conservative values. (As I understand them.) The other does not.

[Jeff Winston]

Or, to maybe be a bit more fair: One version doesn't have conservative moral values.

They may have conservative economic values. Small government, and so forth.

They might also share other values normally associated with conservatives. A strong national defense, for example.

But truth, honesty, etc., don't actually mean anything to them.

[Jeff Winston]

A bigamous marriage is a nullity. It does not exist, if challenged. If a credible Kenyan BC were to be authenticated Barry’s legal team would immediately employ “The Bastard Gambit” of claiming his mom was single so no 5-year residency after age 14 applied...along with the Marguet-Pillado dicta and voila he would be eligible as far as the Obots and the 9th Circus are concerned.

I doubt that would happen. I think they would rely on Hawaii. Even if you think the birth certificate is a fake, then it's clear that any such fake would have to have been done with the cooperation of the Hawaii Department of Health.

That would trump any birth certificate from Kenya, even if it looked credible.

[Tau Food]

American history has shown time and again that the Lord cares deeply about this nation. May He continue to guide us and may He continue to grant us the strength and wisdom to accept cheerfully His will as he continues to reveal it to us.

Others may disagree, but I place our Lord above us all, including the Supreme Court. I trust that God will continue to guide our people and continue to protect the sovereignty of the People of the United States. I pray that the Supreme Court will never attempt to come between our Lord and our good people.

[Ray76]

Ahhh Jeff, Lynch v Clark was not heard by the US Supreme Court.

Still waiting for you to show where ECL was incorporated into United States law. You can show that can’t you?

[Jeff Winston]

Ahhh Jeff, Lynch v Clark was not heard by the US Supreme Court.

I never said Lynch v. Clarke was heard by the US Supreme Court. I said that the Supreme Court accepted the argument that had been presented in that earlier case.

[Spaulding]

"These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since."

But edge919, they haven't been retained, in substance or in fact. The entire section of the 1790 Nationality Act mentioning natural-born citizens was rescinded, never to appear again. Justice Waite didn't say “children either born on our soil or overseas, to parents who were its citizens.”

Was it carelessness? The statement was made in a paragraph based upon Article 1 Section 8, the creation by Congress of an Uniform rule for Naturalization. The justices were masters of the syllogism, so the opening sentence established the context of the following sentence. It was a discussion of the early attempts to establish naturalization laws. Waite makes the comment that the early efforts have been retained “in substance”, but doesn't attempt to address how they have changed. The 1795 Nationality Act made overseas-born children of citizens into citizens - by naturalization.

Justice Gray stressed in Wong Kim Ark, citizens have all the rights of natural-born citizens, only the privilege of becoming president was not permitted, but was not a right.

It appears that Justice Waite is considering that the substance of naturalization laws involves who may naturalize, or be considered, as established by the 14th Amendment, a citizen, naturalized at birth - not the same as a natural-born citizen. He clearly states that there are but two classes of citizens, natural and naturalized. But Justice Waite did not assert that the 1790 Naturalization Act was in effect after 1795. He was providing historical context, which also happened to have illustrated the constant evolution of naturalization law, justifying the use of the only citizen defined in the Constitution, a natural born citizen, to establish Virginia Minor's citizenship before the 14th Amendment.

I have some sense of how much our framers resorted to Vattel’s compendium of natural law. It was, after all, our nation's first law book, made the core curriculum at our first law school, created at William and Mary in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson. But our framers explicitly rejected some of Vattel’s provisions. One that I might have kept was a notion that a nation had a right to prevent citizens with critical skills from expatriating, at least until they had taught a replacement the skills essential to the health of his community. Another not adopted was Vattel’s provision that the children of military of diplomatic corp citizens be “reputed” natural born citizens. It wasn't incorporated either, but would have made McCain eligible.

[SvenMagnussen]

There were many Loyalist living in the colonies before, during and after the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War. Most Loyalist were driven out of the country or imprisoned after the Revolutionary War.

Mary Washington was a Loyalist who remained in the Country. Consequently, colonial citizens were required to sign and state an Oath of Allegiance before they could become a citizen of the state.

Eventually, the various states united under the U.S. Constitution and citizens of the states became citizens of the United States. Consequently, the Founders made it a requirement that a person must be a citizen at the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution or a Natural born citizen to become POTUS or VP.