Posted on 06/10/2014 7:11:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Canada-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made good on a promise to renounce his birth country’s citizenship—doing so amid speculation he could make a run at the White House in 2016.
Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said Cruz’s action became official May 14 and that Texas’ junior senator received written confirmation at his home in Houston on Tuesday. She said the tea-party-backed Republican “is pleased to have the process finalized.”
“Being a U.S. Senator representing Texas, it makes sense he should be only an American citizen,” Frazier said in an email. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The Constitution does not say, in words, what ‘liberty’, ‘freedom’ or ‘independence’ is.
commonly defined words and phrases were used to insure the common man could understand it’s meaning and avoid the potential of only the ‘high priests’ (scotus) being able to ‘interpret it’s true meaning’
Actually that’s why there is a Code of Laws under the broad principals laid out in the Constitution, the law of the land further defines constitutional principles.
The term “law of the land” was used in 1787 to write the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supremacy Clause states: “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....”
The Framers made provision for any of their original thinking to be changed via constitutional amendment. For example, the Founding Fathers were dead set against direct popular election of Senators. But since 1913 we’ve had direct popular election of Senators (17th Amendment). Whatever the Framers meant by natural born citizen was further defined constitutionally by the 14th Amendment’s definition of two AND ONLY TWO forms of American citizenship; born and naturalized.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884):
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
if you’re going to say the 14th amendment defines who is a citizen, then consider the wording:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
it does not mention people born of one or more parents outside the US.
strictly by the 14th Amendment, TCruz wouldn’t be a US citizen as he was not born in the country, but in canada.
'Freedom' is not used in the Constitution. It's in the Fist Amendment, and the meaning can be implied by the sentence before it - 'free exercise thereof'. 'Independence' is also defined by the way it's used: "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." By that you can infer that they define independence as the political separation from Great Britain. "Liberty" is contained only in the Preamble and is not defined; maybe it should have been?
But enough of the nonsense. Where does the Constitution or U.S. law define natural born citizen the way you define it?
Apparently not, since you seem to have a considerable percentage of posters who disagree with you.
please refer to #98
Apparently not, since you seem to have a considerable percentage of posters who disagree with you.
a 'considerable percentage' being 6 or so? many of which are from Texas or Missouri
dems don't hold the lock on astro turf
Two of those pre-date the 14th Amendment.
In the Happersett case you left out a sentence: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." So the Court is neither confirming or denying that children born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents are not natural-born citizens. You can deny it all you want but Justice Waite is not saying you are correct.
In the Wong Kim Ark decision, Justice Gray gives multiple examples where natural born citizen is defined as one born in a country, even of alien parents. Examples being:
"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
"British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown. "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.""Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality."
"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."
“Nationality at Birth” is the relevant part of Title 8, Section 1401 that pertains to Senator Cruz’s eligibility.
He qualifies as a Citizen of the United States At Birth under point “g” of Section 1401.
“Collective naturalization” refers to a whole group of people being granted citizenship at the same time via acquisition of territory or treaty. For example, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848 granted the option of Mexican or U.S. citizenship at the close of the Mexican-American War when the U.S. acquired California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. The residents of those areas became “collectively naturalized.”
From the Law Dictionary: “Collective naturalization takes place where a government, by treaty or cession, acquires the whole or part of the territory of a foreign nation and takes to itself the inhabitants thereof, clothing them with the rights of citizenship either by the terms of the treaty or by subsequent legislation.” (Black’s Law Dictionary)
But then the hulking frame, huge hands, and marriage to a gay man bring me back to reality.
Disgraceful freaks. That picture of Moose next to the Grinch made me LOL literally!
you are sadly confusing citizen ship with eligibility. Please don’t
This is how she represented us to China.....Her trip was "a diplomatic mission" where she met the First Lady of China among other notables... It’s her job as a first lady to do a first ladies 'duties'.... DUH.... It’s not vacationing it’s her job as a first lady......I think the Chinese knew they needed to "entertain" a child....kids didn't look to happy she was there..look at the one with her arms crossed on her desk!
Did you ever see her get this excited about America?
There is a relationship between the two as the Supreme Court has ruled: born citizens can become President or Vice President. Naturalized citizens cannot attain those offices.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884): “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
That is not true. It is not close to being true. It is not true in American history. It is not true now.
It will not be true by continually repeating it. It will not be true if you hold your breath. It will not be true for any reason, at any time.
You signed up for Free Republic just about one year ago. Perhaps you were lurking for a while. Maybe you had a prior handle that you let lapse. In any case, when the issue of Sen. Cruz' birth became an issue, you were on board Free Republic.
Therefore, you know that the law of the United States says that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency. Those born to an eligible US citizen parent while outside the US are citizens at birth. That is the law. By US law, a "citizen at birth" is a "nat(birth)ural born citizen."
Old law. If we want as conservatives to commit political suidide over a Canadian born awesome guy — just live in that dream. I am moving on to someone eligible . I am watching Palin right now . She will have him as attorney general. That is high as he can go unless we amend Article II. Please read it!!! Read wikopedia!!wake up BEFORE WE WASTE OUR MONEY!!
Amen.
Please. Show us the new law that says "natural born" applies only to those born in within the geography of one of the 50 states.
And then show us where it says that in Art II.
Wikipedia? Talk about wasting your time.
Go for O’Bozzo, Sadmillie...
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.