Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Despite anything else about Rubio, he was born in the USA, and the 14th amendment makes him a citizen.
You have just agreed with our point, so I'm not going to dissuade you. Any definition of "natural born citizen" is not a matter of the Constitution or of law with the single exception of the naturalization act of 1790 and the congressional record of same. So, we're dealing with opinion.
Original intent, as preserved in the Congressional Record of 1790 was Blackstone's use of the same expression. Since that is only 3 years removed from the penning of the Constitution, and since Washington presided over both, and since both House and Senate included those who were also at the Constitutional Convention, it is fairly safe to say that "natural born citizen" included either place of birth or blood descent.
And since blood descent has ALWAYS been a part of US law, then "natural born" does intend to include those who gain their citizenship from the citizenship of their parents.
Of course he does. Everyone knows that ONLY human beings can be citizens, but not EVERY human being is natural born.
-----
He gives the broadest definition but does not state that 2 citizen parents and native birth are required for NBC, only that they are sufficient.
When it comes to the Constitution, and Acts written in accordance with it, there is this concept called the rule of Exclusion. It means that which is not included is therefore excluded.
• § 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
Nothing else is included concerning the definition of natural born in the declaratory part of the Act simply because every other definition is excluded.
Original intent, as preserved in the Congressional Record of 1790 was Blackstone's use of the same expression. Since that is only 3 years removed from the penning of the Constitution, and since Washington presided over both, and since both House and Senate included those who were also at the Constitutional Convention, it is fairly safe to say that "natural born citizen" included either place of birth or blood descent.
And since blood descent has ALWAYS been a part of US law, then "natural born" does intend to include those who gain their citizenship from the citizenship of their parents.
Free Republic Ettiquette chief says ping a guy when you mention him.
I told you I would get to natural later, but that my point was to deal with born at that point in time.
One can be born a citizen naturally, so apparently, one can be born a citizen unnaturally. The only way I can conceive of an "unnatural born citizen" is by an act of tyranny decreeing a status on an undeserving child.
What do you think an "unnatural born citizen" would be?
No one disagrees with the above statement. It does not, however, say "ONLY those born within the jurisdiction of the US...etc."
It is possible, however, to make "jurisdiction" broader than just "land" and extend to all those owing allegiance to the US as sovereign.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided... that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
p 88, U.S. 186 Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
This is from that interesting photopage you posted at #906 from a book written in 1817 and based on the work of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and having "Alien." appear to be the title of at least that section. It is found at the end of the first paragraph of footnote #12.
It says that the laws of nature say you can't take away what blood descent provides no matter the geography you happen to be on at the moment.
That, of course, supports the use of "natural born citizen" as including "blood descent."
See #929
Hey, and that’s a nice zot graphic. First one I’ve seen in a while, well, first *two*, since I saw the newer one first.
Jurisdiction is the scope of legal authority. As the federal government has no legal authority inside the borders of another country, there is no 'possibility' the jurisdiction of the United States is anywhere but here....
and it still takes both parents.
Thanks Graewoulf.
It has jurisdiction over soldiers overseas, doesn’t it?
Of course it does, but you're grasping at the exception.
Just like ambassadors, diplomats, and their families, soldiers are considered to be in the service of their country, so they never really 'leave' it.
So, then, you accept that the children born overseas to soldiers are eligible to be president? Is that right?
looking for the source of the passports...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3006422/posts
shoulda dunnit earlier
“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 “
The Constitution says no such thing as it does not define natural born.
Has he/she taken up legal residence in another country? Is he/she in active service? Is the other parent a citizen? Are their any legal age limits for the passing of citizenship by a person in service?
------
First you try to 'broaden' the term jurisdiction beyond its legitimate boundaries, now you're focusing on the VERY narrow exception.
Your little game is getting quite tiresome.
I have no little game. I’m simply searching out facts. So far, the facts are not on your side, but there are still things I’d like to find more evidence for on the side of descent-based citizenship.
You seem to indicate that you will accept as a natural born citizen the overseas born children of our US military so long as both parents are US citizens at the time of birth.
Is that a fair summary of one of the things you do believe?
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.