Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?
If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
§ 301(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United States for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
Automatic citizenship? Hardly. Actions are required.
A person who truly does have automatic citizenship, such as those born in the US with parental US citizenship, need not take any action to retain citizenship.
Naturalized persons’ citizenship is conditional.
This is my hope as well. Cruz would prove himself one of the greatest patriots in American history if he did this.
(It would also lay the groundwork for some great confirmation hearings when President Paul appoints Cruz to SCOTUS.)
Must be because Cruz does not lie about it. Lying is rewarded in zer0’s America.
You obviously never heard that marxists can lie cheat and steal to get their way. whats good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. and the MSM will be right their to condemn Cruz as not a natural born citizen
No, what the Constitution established early on was that a person could be a citizen if only one parent was a citizen. That is the case with Cruz. It also established that Congress had the power to define these things.
In that day, we had a patriarchal country, women couldn’t vote, and men ruled. That is the reason the father’s citizenship was the crucial issue.
That is the reason for the amendment to the constitution granting women the right to vote. (Article. [XIX.][Proposed 1919; Ratified 1920] The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.)
That has since changed, so now the law reads that only one parent has to be a citizen:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States ‘ or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less ‘ than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age “ of fourteen years: Provided^ That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements “ of this paragraph.”
First, 301(b) has been repealed. The only way now to have citizenship involuntarily removed is for treason.
Second, you can renounce your citizenship for a variety of reasons.
Third, the old 301(b) was simply assuming that the person had de facto renounced his citizenship, something that every citizen CAN do.
As stated, that provision has been repealed.
Your argument that citizenship cannot be birthright citizenship if it can be stripped is not valid, since it can be stripped in the case of treason and it can be renounced.
Your argument is that real birthright citizenship can never be negated. It can by your own action and it can for treason.
Therefore, your argument is invalid.
You really don’t understand collective naturalization.
Ted Cruz is not a “collective”. He is an individual.
Citizens of a territory all of whom are addressed in the paragraphs of 301 are a collective.
In simple terms there are only two kinds of citizens. There are Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens. If you are not born a Citizen, then you must go through a Naturalization process in order to gain rightful Citizenship. Anyone who is required to go through this process becomes a a citizen after birth.
If you are born a Citizen, then you are considered a Natural Born Citizen.
There are no other categories of Citizenship.
Ted Cruz did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen. He was BORN a citizen. He falls into the Natural Born Citizen category.
End of argument.
Cruz/Palin 2016
I thought that language was familiar, so you are entirely correct.
It's from the 1790 Naturalization Act, which was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act.
I guess the Founders thought it a good idea to close that window of opportunity they had earned by establishing the American States.
-----
Your post was excellent, BTW. :-)
I’m sorry but I am terribly pessimistic about this country returning to core values. I believe the dems have a perfect machine for creating permanent dependency and inflating their voting rolls. Having said this, I believe Sarah and Ted deserve our protest vote in the next socialist-contrived election!
See posts 140 and 147
These folks are so brainwashed by previous arguments they’ve heard regarding the definition of “natural born citizen” that they can’t see the actual words of law that are on the page in front of them. It’s like the words don’t exist.
In any case, Cruz was born a citizen. The act of 1790 calls these folks born overseas “natural born citizens”, so that means we should IGNORE how the actual same group of people used the same expression. And we should ignore that George Washington, no stranger to the Constitution, signed that law.
It’s bizarre was brainwashing does to people’s ability to read.
AFTER Ratification, they repealed it.
The Naturalization Act of 1795, Section 4
And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
The Founders CLOSED that provision on obtaining the privileges as immunities OF natural born citizenship that only they had earned by fighting the Revolution.
So the point of your post was what, exactly?
So, the fact that Congress shows that they have the authority to decide who is a born citizen says that all subsequent law through the years is not some violation of the Constitution. And George Washington signed 1790, and since he had 2 terms (8 years) he signed 1795 as well. He served from 1789-1797)
the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
There are only 2 kinds of citizens, Mama, (1) those who are born citizens, and (2) those who are naturalized citizens.
Ted Cruz was born a citizen.
'Subject, or citizen' is two ways to say the same thing, but 'native, or natural born' always means two separate things.
Huh?
I went to school when they still taught grammer... you know.... 'the fuctions of conjuctions' ties two things together.
Everything he writes is a mish-mash of incoherent ramblings punctuated by contradiction and wishful thinking. The particular tactic of making one thing incrementally equal to the other is the fallacy of equivocation AND the fallacy of the Beard.
Virtually everything Jeff writes is some form of fallacious argument and it drives me up the wall to have to deal with so many twisted and irrational statements at the same time.
The boy cannot make a RATIONAL argument.
Post of the day! And the only one clearly understandable.
Yes, it is.
Article 6, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
'which shall be made in Pursuance thereof'.
The pursuant authority is to make a uniform RULE of Naturalization for the States to follow. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4) Nowhere is the authority given to 'bestow' citizenship or determine who is or is not what kind of citizen. Thus, anything outside the making of that Rule is contrary to the Constitution.
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution
****
shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
For the federal government, not the States OR any People residing outside the area of enumerated jurisdiction.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
****
'any Thing in the Constitution '
Tenth Amendment
****
'or Laws of any State to the Contrary'
State Constitutions
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
All the States have these, and they all say the military authority is subordinate to the civil authority inside the State....
and the federal authority IS a 'military' one.
-----
The Founders enumerated powers for a reason. Using what's known as the Rule of Exclusion, they enumerated powers to LIMIT the federal government.
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
It is a general principle of statutory construction that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion Of another. (For an exhaustive annotation on this "rule of exclusion," see: 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes §212 and the citations collected thereunder.) As exceptions in a statute strengthen the force of law in cases not excepted, so enumerations weaken it in cases not enumerated.
John C. Danforth, Missouri Attorney General, April 21, 1975
The Founders might as well have just have saved themselves the trouble by writing the Supremacy Clause and then gone home, because (according to your logic, anyway) the Clause ITSELF can negate the enumerations so painstakingly contained contained in the Compact!
------
Ted Cruz was born a citizen.
So you have said. The question is, what kind?
Natural born citizenship is a product of the citizenship of your NATURAL parents.
That would make him a dual Cuban/American citizenship, not natural born one.
make=give
The law at the time of his birth - he is naturalized.
Naturalization statute may assign citizenship at any point. It may be at birth; or upon the naturalization of the parent(s); or, for those after 18 years of age, upon completion of a process.
The law states that Cruz is a "citizen", it does not state "natural born citizen".
I have cited specific law and provided a link to the Statutes at Large where you can read it. You have provided your assertion, backed by further assertions.
Cruz is naturalized.
Not so, Mama. Article 1, Section 8, the last paragraph says: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "
To decide who needs to be naturalized, you need to know who doesn't. So, that was a "necessary and proper" law, as empowered by the US Constitution.
There are two kinds of citizens, those who are born citizens and those who need to be naturalized.
And the law of 1790 PROVES that Congress, the same guys who 3 years before wrote the Constitution, thought it was in their purview to determine who is automatically a citizen. It was signed by then president, George Washington.
Folks can belly-ache all they want, but Cruz will receive zero legal challenge to any decision to run, because no legal challenge is possible under our law. Under our law he is a born US citizen.
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.