Posted on 05/18/2013 7:52:44 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada but is qualified to become president should he mount a campaign in 2016 or beyond.
Cruz was born in Calgary, and his father is from Cuba. But the Republican senator’s mother is from the first state of Delaware, which appears to settle the issue.
Government officials didn’t exactly have to scramble for the information amid speculation the firebrand freshman senator was contemplating a presidential run and might be ineligible, considering similar questions about President Obama’s birth prompted the Congressional Research Office to compile a 2009 report to try to resolve the issue.
The 14-page report by the non-partisan office’s legislative attorney Jack Maskell essentially states the Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be at least 35, a resident within the United States for 14 years and a “natural born citizen.”
The report states "the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including … those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."
However, Maskell points out in an expanded, Nov. 2011 memorandum “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Cruz has excited the Republican Party’s conservative base during his first five months in the Senate – while annoying moderates – by opposing everything from Obama Cabinet nominations to the bipartisan Senate immigration bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You can have whatever opinion suits you. So can I.
And there is always my point. What do 1952 rules have to do with 1787 “natural” citizens?
What is the “weight of authority” that supports the idea that someone such as Senator Cruz is eligible to “be” President as satisfying the Natural Born Citizen requirement? Having researhed the matter quite extensively, I don’t find that to be so.
Do you realize that maintaining this marginal position completely shuts down your ability to effectively argue against any of Obama’s policies.
Nobody listens, because you’ve already ruined you credibility.
“What is the “weight of authority” that supports the idea that someone such as Senator Cruz is eligible to “be” President as satisfying the Natural Born Citizen requirement? Having researhed the matter quite extensively, I don’t find that to be so.”
Some believe he is qualified, some don’t. You think your research says he isn’t, mine says he is. These differences will rage on and there is no point in arguing the case since we won’t be the ones deciding.
The United States Supreme Court in MINOR v, HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) clarified the definition of NATURAL BORN that a child born of two U.S. Citizens is a Natural Born citizen. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon birth, citizens also. There were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The 1952 rules don’t have anything to do with the 1787 ‘natural’ citizens.
The 1952 rules are there to take care of the various cases where both parents are NOT u.s. citizens, and/or the child is born outside the u.s.; these are ‘just plain’ citizens.
If both parents ARE citizens when the child is born, there is no question as to the citizenship of the child; there is no reason to check the rules to see if the child is a citizen or not.
For 0 or Cruz, there’s a reason to go check the rules to see if they are ‘just plain’ citizens or not, therefore NEITHER one are ‘natural’ citizens per 1787 rules.
Here is a brief, partial bio of Cruz. I say he's brilliant and a leader to take on the biggest problems because he's not afraid and he speaks directly to a problem, explaining it to the people will be a cake walk for him:
“Before being elected, Ted received national acclaim as the Solicitor General of Texas, the State’s chief lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court. Serving under Attorney General Greg Abbott, Ted was the nation’s youngest Solicitor General, the longest serving Solicitor General in Texas, and the first Hispanic Solicitor General of Texas.”
Yep and I guess we would have to all sacrifice for the country. I have just recently decided that being a citizens 3 times over is best for the country. It just makes sense when we have over 300 million people in the country and have only had 45 Presidents. Why is it that people who weren't even born in the country want to be our President.
Um...Cruz stated he IS eligible.
... and that doubt to which Chief Justice Waite referred centers upon just whether or not a given individual was born with a foreign sovereignty making legal claims upon him or her. These legal claims under foreign law enter into consideration by means of either parentage or location of birth.
A foreign parent may or may not serve as a vector for foreign legal claims at birth upon any children. A foreign country of birth may or may not serve as a vector for foreign legal claims at birth upon any children.
There is no possibility of an individual with neither parent being US citizens born abroad ever being a natural born citizen. There is some possibility if one parent is, but there are mitigating factors depending upon the intrusion of foreign law.
There actually isn’t any possibility for an individual born in the US with neither parent being US citizens, either, but authorities have been being very permissive and the perception is such.
The crux of the matter is that US Constitutional law does not permit any individual who is in any way under the control of some other, foreign law to be President or even in the line of succession.
I do not believe you have any authority other than possibly the single state court opinion of recent years to support your position. If there is such a “weight” of authority you could cite some of it. But I believe that you have made it clear that you cannot cite any such “weight” of authority.
I do not believe you have any authority other than possibly the single state court opinion of recent years to support your position. If there is such a “weight” of authority you could cite some of it. But I believe that you have made it clear that you cannot cite any such “weight” of authority.
First of all, you can start with the actual CRS report. It's quite long and discusses quite a bit of authority.
As for more, I will be citing SOME - just a PORTION - of the authority on the meaning of "natural born citizen" for you here soon.
You have great difficulty in distinguishing statutory legislation at the state level from that of the the national level, statutory legislation of any source from Constitutional law, and feudal subjects bound to the land and a lord from a citizen of a constitutional republic.
I doubt you’ll be posting anything but highly confused bombast with lots of all-caps yelling and red highlighted text as a result.
Here’s a link to the Congressional Research Service Report on “Presidential Qualifications and the Naturral Born Citizen Eligibility Requirement.”
The report is 53 pages long and cites 233 references in its footnotes.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-“Natural-Born”-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement
Since its release, not one member of Congress has spoken out in critique of its findings and no congressional hearings have been held on this topic.
The report was requested by [former] Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) in response to concerns expressed by several of his his constituents.
Additionally, since 2008 there have been 201 original jurisdiction court rulings in nearly every state in the union, 90 state and federal appellate level rulings and 25 appeals at the Supreme Court of the United States.
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.