Maybe you should read the law more. Here, try reading this:
8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Actually READ the law instead of spouting what you *THINK* it says. Don't be afraid. It is written in plain English. No fancy Latin, no fancy wording, just plain old English that a 6th grader can read.
I just handed you and everyone reading this post the link to the actual law, yet, we'll still get a bunch of morons claiming things not in law as they will not take the time to read it. People who do that are no better than any liberal claiming crap they know nothing about. In my book, that makes them liberals.
I gather then that you believe that it would be perfectly alright for Congress to pass a law which defines "Natural Born Citizen" to mean that a person is born to parents who are BOTH citizens"?
Would it be alright for Congress to define "Arms" in the Second Amendment to mean "clubs and knives, but not firearms"?
Here's a headline from a recent internet article:
Lesbian Couple, Gay Man Listed as Three Parents on Baby’s Birth Certificate
Is the child of this union eligible to be President? How many of this child's parents must be U.S. citizens for the child to be eligible?
“Maybe you should read the law more. Here, try reading this:
8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”
You are quoting the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Congress is Constitutionally mandated to devise a uniform rule of law and regulation for the process of being recognized as a U.S. Citizen. Congress does not have Constitutional authority to determine who is and who is not a natural born citizen.
It’s entirely possible and probable SCOTUS would hear a case brought by the Libs against Cruz because he is relying on a statute to prove his eligibility for POTUS where Congress is not Constitutionally mandated authority to legislate.
Natural born citizenship status is a subset of U.S. Citizen. Obama uses his birth certificate to infer he is a natural born citizen by the 14th Amendment. In fact, Obama uses the Privacy Act to conceal his Certificate of Naturalization from the public. Cruz relies on his Certificate of Citizenship, issued to him under the Immigration and Nationality to publicly claim citizenship.
A natural born citizen cannot rely on the Immigration and Nationality Act to proclaim eligibility because Congress does not have that Constitutional authority. Congress can only codify a process for becoming a citizen.
First, let me say this so you know exactly where I stand:
Ted Cruz was born a U.S. citizen. He is a statutory citizen by birth. I believe he is eligible to the presidency.
I actually have read pretty much everything there is to read on the subject of natural-born citizens: every SCOTUS ruling, every piece of legislation passed or repealed, government policy manuals, and historical & political articles/commentaries/speeches/discussions, etc.
Most FR birthers are good conservatives with good intentions and most of them have read the same material that I have. I’ve been discussing Obama’s eligibility with them since 2008.
Here are some of the finer points of the eligibility dicussion.
- The Wonkg Kim Ark & Happersett SCOTUS rulings indicate that there is only one group of citizens who citizenship status cannot be questioned - those born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. About all other groups, arguments can be and have been made for or against their citizenship status.
- The State Department’s policy manual stipulates that a citzen at birth by statute is not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and eligible to the presidency. (Statutory citizenship granted at birth by Congress may or may not be the same as citizenship granted by the Constitution.)
- The State Department’s policy manual also stipulates that citizens at birth by statute are not considered naturalized because naturalization is a process that takes place after birth. They are citizens, nothing more, nothing less.
Until very recently, I have long been of the opinion that statutory citizens at birth are not natural-born citizens because their citizenship status is a Congressional generosity granted through legislation that can and has been revoked by legislation numerous times. Congress cannot revoke the citizenship of a constitutional, 14th Amendment citizen without that citizen’s consent per SCOTUS.
As you know, the Constitution does not define “natural-born citizen.” It does, however, grant Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. In order to fulfil that power/duty, Congress must first determine who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t. They look to the 14th Amendment for the most obvious answer. Then they must consider various other factors about one’s birth circumstances to decide if someone requires naturalization.
As it stands now, Congress has decided that those to whom they grant citizenship at birth by bloodline (jus sanguinis) do not require naturalization.
Therefore, Ted Cruz, who is a statutory citizen at & by birth, is IMHO eligible to the presidency according to the will of Congress. Unless and until SCOTUS decides to rule on whether or not statutory citizenship is equivalent to constitutional citizenship (not naturalized), that’s where we stand.
I have printed out your reference to U.S.C. 1401 and filed it with my other copies of such. I first refer you to the Constitution which in Article I speaks only to ‘citizen’ and then to Article II which speaks to ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA. Obviously the Founders declared a difference to exist. I now refer you to your copy of U.S.C.1401. At the very beginning statement it speaks only to ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’. There is no mention whatsoever of ‘natural born citizens’ being covered as it does for ‘citizens’. As such it is a reasonable conclusion that U.S.C. 1401 was not intended to deal with ‘natural born citizen’. Your strident comments do not make your case as I read the Constitution and U.S.C.1401.
You are handing us a Federal Law in an effort to settle a Constitutional issue?
If a Federal Law bans rifles and shotguns, does this mean that the 2nd amendment has been effectively repealed?
Please explain to me how a Federal law "tail" can wag a constitutional dog?