Posted on 07/28/2013 6:13:04 PM PDT by drewh
Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t said whether he has presidential ambitions, but Sunday he won one of the first straw polls for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
The Texas Republican captured 45 percent of the 504 votes cast by attendees at the Western Conservative Summit, a day after drawing several standing ovations during his luncheon speech at the fourth annual conference.
“We shall see what sort of crystal ball summiteers have in awarding that decisive nod to Sen. Ted Cruz, who was so magnificent from this platform,” said John Andrews, founder of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, which hosted the event.
Placing second was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who delivered the keynote address Friday at the three-day summit, with 13 percent of the vote.
Tied for third were Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and former Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, with 9 percent each. Mr. West was the conference’s featured speaker Sunday, while Mr. Paul received the most votes among those on the ballot who didn’t attend the conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Bayard’s claim that “It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’ It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.” is contrary to law.
In 1790 Congress passed a naturalization act declaring 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”
In 1795 Congress passed a naturalization act declaring the “children of citizens born out of the limits and jurisidiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States”
When Bayard made his claim, children born to US citizen parents in a foreign country where “citizens”. Between 1790 and 1795 children born to US citizen parents in a foreign country where “natural born citizens”.
The only time Bayard’s claim would be true is between 1790 and 1795 and only due to a Naturalization Act. Absent that act the foreign born children of US citizens where not citizens.
Correct, if we look at that as lawyerly as we can, you're right, not at that time.
The Blood in the "Blood and Soil" requirement to satisfy the "Natural Born" definition, as opposed to defining "native born", more likely would have been defined as Father, rather than mom and dad.
Okay. Let me rephrase that.
There is not a single quote from any Founder or Framer or any member of their generation that defines "natural born citizen" as "someone born on US soil AND having either two citizen parents, or a citizen father."
The requirement simply does not exist.
Instead, we have America's most prominent legal experts from early America signing on to such ideas as: If you were born in the United States, but didn't have citizen parents, that still makes you a natural born citizen. Or conversely, if you were born outside of the United States, but had citizen parents, you're ALSO a natural born citizen.
Literally every major legal expert of early America who spoke clearly on the issue says that birthers are wrong.
““EVERY HUMAN BEING born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Bingham did NOT exclude those born on foreign soil from being Natural Born Citizens, not with this quote. This is NOT exclusive language. He does not say “must”, that is YOUR language.
So little time left and you're still playing dodge ball.
The Truth will set you free, brother, not this path you're on.
Here is what he stated in exact context. It is recorded in the Congressional Record:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
The man authored Section 1 of the 14th Amendment on Citizenship. He clearly knows what the hell he was talking about. It would take a utter fool to not believe that.
Here is the record of his comments from the house floor in Congress. Look at the middle column, second paragraph. Might need to zoom in. I had too.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
Take away the naturalization act you take away the citizenship at birth. Of course then you need the naturalization act to vest citizenship at birth, but since since the act vested citizenship at birth there is no longer a need for a naturalization act, so you take away the naturalization act.... Round and round. Like snake eating its tail.
Bingham means that to be a natural born Citizen...........your parents can’t owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. That means that Ted Cruz’s father Rafael negates Ted Cruz from being a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen since he owed allegiance to Cuba at Ted’s birth in Canada, another foreign sovereignty.
Ted Cruz is ineligible.
Bingham clearly did NOT say what you claim that he said. Nobody is arguing about the point you have just made, those born on US Soil to 2 citizen parents ARE Citizens. Period.
Now what did he say about those born abroad? NOTHING you have posted even touches on that matter.
Take away the naturalization act and NO ONE is a citizen either natural born or naturalized. It is a decision fork not a loop. It is the naturalization act that defines the RULES OF NATURALIZATION (per US Constitution Article 1 Section 8).
The naturalization act says people who meet cases A - G are citizens at birth and do not require the naturalization process to be citizens, [end of decision branch].
Those that do not meet cases A - G are not citizens at birth and therefor, must be naturalized [jump to the criteria for becoming naturalized]
There were citizens of this country before the first naturalization act was ever passed, so this statement is clearly in error.
“Take away the naturalization act and NO ONE is a citizen either natural born or naturalized.”
To the contrary, take away the naturalization act and there are those who are citizens: those born in country with parental US citizenship. No law is required for their citizenship, they are natural born.
“At” is a point in time.
“By” is causal.
§ 1401 declares who shall be nationals and citizens of United States AT birth. Such persons are citizen at birth BY law.
The causal agent is operation of law. That law may vary causing a person to either be a citizen at birth or not at all.
A person born in country to citizen parent is a citizen BY birth.
The causal agent is birth. This person is always a citizen, this has never been doubted.
Slicing the bogus NBC rather thin, wouldn’t you say ?
Congress has no interest in this issue. There hasn’t been even a minute of congressional hearing time devoted to Article II, Section 1 requirements.
The courts and state election boards are required by state statute to rule on eligibility ballot challenges. There were fifty such ballot challenges heard in 22 states plus the District of Columbia in 2012.
We are still waiting on final rulings on ballot eligibility challenges in Alabama (state Supreme Court) and Mississippi (US District Court).
The courts have disagreed with your interpretation.
Purpura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
Voeltz v Obama, Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
Nope.
THERE IS NO POINT.
There is not a single quote from any Founder or Framer or any member of their generation that defines "natural born citizen" as "someone born on US soil AND having either two citizen parents, or a citizen father."
And in fact, EVERY SINGLE MAJOR EXPERT FROM THE EARLY UNITED STATES WHO SPOKE CLEARLY ON THE MATTER SAYS THAT BIRTHERS ARE FULL OF IT.
Every single one.
THAT is the point, my friend.
“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States’” is a paraphrase of Amend XIV.
I’ve not mentioned British Nationality Act, Kenya, Obama, or Amend XIV. What is your point?
I will spend some time this week studying all of this but one thing is for certain, we will find out the answer in the near future.
LLS
The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
The distinguishing characteristic was parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”?
Are we to conclude that other children born with parental US citizenship - those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, those born within the United States - are “natural born citizens”?
Or are these other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Why? Was it necessary that they be “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to be “natural born citizens”?
Who are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
The reasonable conclusion is that those born within the United States with parental US citizenship are “natural born citizens”.
Since the Constitution is the supreme law of these United States, please provide a reference to support your position siting either the Constitution, Bill of Rights or current law.
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.