Posted on 06/11/2014 11:18:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
~~snip~~ (just the facts, ma'am).
But what won't prevent Cruz from becoming president is his place of birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, while his parents were living there. His father is now an American citizen, but was not at the time; his mother, however, was born in the United States.
Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz's case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here's a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.
~~snip~~
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
I never suggested any such thing. Read up on the crisis that preceded the abdication of Edward VIII. The British government would NEVER allow an American president to ascend the throne.
Show me DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE (i.e. newspaper articles) FROM THE 1960s that suggest this.
That doesn't change the absurdity of your stawman that if you questioned Soetoros eligibility you therefor had to believe in a 40 year conspiracy.
How is that a strawman? This is what is REQUIRED if we are to believe much of what the birthers have put forth.
You fail to address this question. Why did the founders take this position?
Why does Article I read thusly :
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. And
Article II reads thusly :
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Surely, they had a reason. The founders were very thoughtful in their consideration of the Constitution and possessed an excellent grasp of proper English grammar. They had a valid reason. What do you think the reason?
You might want to wish that were true, but British law had long been accepting the dual sources of citizenship: location or blood. The children born overseas to British citizens were themselves British citizens.
It is from this that our own law is derived.
Representative Burke in the Congressional minutes regarding naturalization in the original, very first Congress: “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.”
Representative Hartley in those same minutes: “he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.”
I haven't failed to address it at all.
The Founding Fathers had NO ISSUES with naturalized citizens (people born in foreign countries to TWO foreign parents) who had immigrated to the United States being elected to Congress. They did not feel that such people should be president.
This is YOUR contention and, as such, YOU have the duty to prove it.
If you recall, Awlaki was the US CITIZEN authorized by Obama to be killed.
So, his child was a child of a US citizen born while in the USA, but now living the Lord knows where in Yemen probably.
So, do you have problems with this child being eligible to the presidency. It was BORN IN THE USA to a US citizen.
I have no problem with this child's eligibility, but he's unlikely to get my vote.
The "natural born citizen" requirement is just one of many protections designed to give us a loyal, wise chief executive subject to checks and balances from the Congress and the Supreme Court.
You seem deeply confused, conservatives here do not have to roll over for the anti-conservative libertarians, but how nice of you to bring it up for no reason and out of the blue, on this thread.
It sounds like you have a personal problem.
As you already stated where? Stop deflecting and run along and tell teacher.
My point, of course, is that laws can be improved. I think it is a good thing that the children born overseas to US citizens become themselves citizens by birth. I had a military career, and while all my kids were born stateside, I know many loyal, American families whose kids were born while they were stationed overseas. Germany, for example, automatically makes everyone born in Germany, a German citizen. It’s not the kid’s fault that Germany did that. It’s not the kid’s fault their parents lived there the first few years of their lives. Nor does it mean they have any loyalty to anything other than the USA.
So, if we ever get around to amending the Constitution, I’d spell it all out a bit more. In the meantime, I’d have Congress eliminate anchor baby citizenship. And I’d find some way to control the presidential eligibility of children of those who side with foreign enemies of the USA.
The problem with Obama’s mama was that even though she was a US citizen, if he’d been born overseas, she was young enough that she wouldn’t have met the residency requirement. This is quite different than Cruz whose mother more than met the residency requirement.
I never saw a thread posing your 40 year conspiracy straw man. You asserted that straw man and now you wan ME to back something up?
I'm sure you think you just made an intelligent argument...
Let's try again, YOU need to provide documentation from the 1960s, not conspiracy theories cooked up in the last few years, to prove your point.
I never saw a thread posing your 40 year conspiracy straw man. You asserted that straw man and now you wan ME to back something up?
Really, you've never seen the theories that the birth announcement was somehow planted in the newspaper for illicit reasons.
I'm sure you think you just made an intelligent argument...
And I'm sure you consider yourself a renowned constitutional scholar.
Give it a rest.
What’s your point?
The bottom line is that Cruz is eligible. This is Cruz country, and anyone attacking Cruz is going to get gob-smacked. There might be a few of the “concerned” who haven’t read the past FR threads on this subject, but most have. They know that US law concludes that Cruz is eligible. Those lost in the fantasy of Vattel and Wikipedia give the truthers a run for their money.
And there have already been Viking Kitties for those who persisted in concern trolling.
I assume you looked back at the exchange.
I have not seen anyone claim the BC and newspaper notices were done “because they wanted him to be president four decades later.” That is a straw man to impugn, IMHO.
Rather than defend the assertion, I got the “There was NEVER a question of his mother's citizenship” change of subject.
While no one questioned her citizenship (non sequitor?), there certainly were discussions about her ability to covey citizenship to Barry.
Now I guess I am supposed to dig up those old threads for some reason.
All of that does not address my point in the first place that no serious person ever said the deception was because they new Barry would run for President 40 years later.
That is my point.
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.