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 ...
The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence sets the stage for the American revolution and its indispensable reliance on the laws of God, the Creator. It declares:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
By invoking the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow. The theory of freedom adopted was simply that God's law was supreme and gave freedom. The phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" referred to the laws that God in his capacity as the Creator of the universe had established for the governance of people, nations and nature. These laws are variously described as the laws of Creation, God's Creation laws or as the framers elected to refer to them, as the laws of nature and of nature's God. This body of law, whatever it is called, can be ascertained by people through an examination of God's creation, the text of the Bible, and to a certain degree, instinct or reason.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Declaration is an amazing document, however, it was not included among those that are the supreme law of the land.
On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington, President John Quincy Adams noted:
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government . . . . (yet) even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration as self-evident truths.
All well and good, but in the Constitution it spells out the supreme law of the land.
That the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is not in debate. It’s the interpretation of it at issue here.
No, it is not the interpretation that’s the issue.
It’s the plain text question of authority over naturalization. That is to Congress. No matter what you say it means or I say it means, it is Congress given the authority to decide that and make law based on those decisions.
The laws passed by Congress (and signed by a president or which become law by the override of the president’s veto ) are “the Supreme Law of the Land” according to Article VI of the Constitution.
The law of the land states in Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code of Laws that a “National and Citizen of the United States At Birth” includes: “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions [like Ted Cruz who was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada] of parents one of whom is an alien [like Ted Cruz’s father who was a Cuban citizen prior to becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen], and the other a citizen of the United States [like Ted Cruz’s mother who was born in Delaware] 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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...” [Ted Cruz’s mother lived her whole life in the U.S. prior to moving to Canada with her husband for five years].
Yes, there is no doubt that Cruz was a citizen at birth.
It’s also unwise of us to think that in considering the laws they’ve written over the years. that all of these Congresses didn’t bother to research, to compare, and to debate. It would also be unwise not to acknowledge that ever since the first Congress the laws are remarkably similar regarding the children born overseas to US parents.
Yes, there is no doubt that Cruz was a citizen at birth.
It’s also unwise of us to think that in considering the laws they’ve written over the years. that all of these Congresses didn’t bother to research, to compare, and to debate. It would also be unwise not to acknowledge that ever since the first Congress the laws are remarkably similar regarding the children born overseas to US parents.
Yes, there is no doubt that Cruz was a citizen at birth.True that, Cruz was a citizen of Canada of the USA and possibly of Cuba at birth, thus he was a born citizen, but the Constitution requires that he be more than a mere born citizen.
To become president, he must not only be a born citizen, he must meet the more restrictive qualifier of being a natural born Citizen. Obviously the two are not the same because the founders would not have added a totally meaningless and redundant word to the phrase. They would have simply left out the adjective "natural" if it did not further define and restrict the requirement of merely being born a citizen.
Of course, if Cruz is our standard bearer, I am voting for him, but I fear that the dems will wait until it is too late to field another candidate, then try to DQ Cruz because he was foreign born. I hope, if he indeed runs, that he has the good sense to seek a court ruling on his eligibility very early on.
Oddly, you don't mention that he was a citizen of the United States at all. I'm assuming you would mean that, too, and that your leaving it out was an oversight.
You have nothing in the supreme law of our land that defines 'natural born citizen' the way you want to define it. So, in that regard you are simply making things up.
If you have something from our law, then you will post it. Otherwise, you are simply posting your opinion, things you've read, surmised, imagined, wanted, or had suggested to you.
If it isn't from our law and it is your own personal opinion, then suffice it to say that the Congress of the USA, the body authorized by the supreme law of our land to make the decision what 'natural born citizen' means, hasn't placed any weight whatsoever in your opinion.
The sweet irony is that the Obama precedent means Ted Cruz must be considered “natural born” so I’m in.
The sweet irony is that the Obama precedent means Ted Cruz must be considered “natural born” so I’m in.If Ted Cruz runs and is not successfully disqualified by the dems, then he would make an outstanding conservative president, but the dems will claim that unlike their man (the lying identity fraud aka obama, who probably actually was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii as he claims), our man Ted was foreign born, thus aka obama was eligible where Cruz is not.
Yes, both had non-citizen fathers when born, so one who believes as you do could say that precedent has been set, but according to politically correct accepted "truth" aka obama was born in the USA whereas Ted Cruz was not. I am afraid that the dems and the regime-stream media will wait until Cruz is locked in, then hammer away at this incessantly as a key difference regarding eligibility.
Ted Cruz, if he indeed he decides to seek the nomination, should cut this bit of dem hypocrisy off at the pass by requesting a court ruling on the matter as soon as he declares. Unlike aka obama, Cruz is an honorable man and, unlike aka obama, Cruz has been forthcoming and open with his life records, so it would make sense that, for the sake of his voters, his party and himself, he would want to remove all possible lingering doubt about his eligibility status at the beginning of his run.
The sweet irony is that the Obama precedent means Ted Cruz must be considered “natural born” so I’m in.If Ted Cruz runs and is not successfully disqualified by the dems, then he would make an outstanding conservative president, but the dems will claim that unlike their man (the lying identity fraud aka obama, who probably actually was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii as he claims), our man Ted was foreign born, thus aka obama was eligible where Cruz is not.
Yes, both had non-citizen fathers when born, so one who believes as you do could say that precedent has been set, but according to politically correct accepted "truth" aka obama was born in the USA whereas Ted Cruz was not. I am afraid that the dems and the regime-stream media will wait until Cruz is locked in, then hammer away at this incessantly as a key difference regarding eligibility.
Ted Cruz, if he indeed he decides to seek the nomination, should cut this bit of dem hypocrisy off at the pass by requesting a court ruling on the matter as soon as he declares. Unlike aka obama, Cruz is an honorable man and, unlike aka obama, Cruz has been forthcoming and open with his life records, so it would make sense that, for the sake of his voters, his party and himself, he would want to remove all possible lingering doubt about his eligibility status at the beginning of his run.
Weird I’ve never had a double post before. The cued up message disappears as soon as the Post button is clicked, so I don’t really know how it is even possible to produce a double post.
True that, Cruz was a citizen of Canada, of the USA and possibly of Cuba at birth, thus he was a born citizen, but the Constitution requires that he be more than a mere born citizen.Not so oddly, I did indeed mention that Cruz was a citizen of the USA at birth (please reread my prior post, but this time without the oversight on your part) and that he was a born citizen -- that actually is two mentions. :-)Oddly, you don't mention that he was a citizen of the United States at all. I'm assuming you would mean that, too, and that your leaving it out was an oversight.
Yes, my bad. The comma was lacking, it was late, and my mind was reading America rather than USA.
However, the odds are that Ted Cruz never had Cuban citizenship. At the time, Rafael Cruz took Canadian citizenship Canada was discouraging dual citizenship. With Cuba having gone communist, that would have been hard for Rafael to explain. Next, when he eventually received US citizenship, he renounced his Canadian citizenship. That also suggests that he no longer had Cuban citizenship to renounce, that he had already done so.
No one has specifically written on the subject, but my conjecture makes sense.
So far as Canadian citizenship is concerned, that same distaste at that time for a Canadian citizen to have dual citizenship would make someone think that it just wasn’t effective. He was 3 years old when his family returned to the US. His mother’s citizenship gave him a solid US citizenship by all our laws, and it sounds like a childhood in the US. At 3, he wouldn’t have remembered anything about most things, much less something like citizenship.
The distinction between Obama and Cruz is an important part of the law. At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother had not yet resided in the US past her 14th birthday the number of years required by the law. That was the accusation against Obama, but no one could prove that his mom was overseas at the time of his birth. They still can’t.
In Cruz’ case, there is no doubt that his mother met the residency requirement.
The Democrats and their fellow travelers, the liberal mainstream media are already defending Cruz’s eligibility.
For example:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-born-in-canada-and-still-become-president-of-the-us/275469/
Why? Because they would love to run against Senator Cruz (who they think can’t win because he’s too conservative) and because a Ted Cruz candidacy further justifies and legitimizes the Obama presidency.
I’m betting that the Democrats in the Senate will sponsor another non-binding resolution attesting to Senator Cruz’s eligibility (just like they did for Panama Canal Zone-born John McCain, with Senator Obama as a co-sponsor) to show how magnanimous and “bi-partisan” they are.
Liberals love bi-partisanship when they think it works in their favor.
July 4, 1776 was recognized (by the Founders, and all subsequent courts) as the point at which the Colonies ceased being British Subjects, and thereafter were United States Citizens.
This is not even debatable.
So I would suggest to you that if American Citizenship was created by the Declaration of Independence, then that document ought to have a very strong relevance to what constitutes the characteristic of citizenship.
The Articles of Confederation did not create US Citizens. The US Constitution did not create US Citizens. It was the Declaration of Independence which CREATED US CITIZENS.
This is pretty much my position. If *THEY* don't play by the rules, I say screw the rules. At this point in this nation's history there are far worse constitutional violations about which we should be more concerned than this one.
Cruz is the only man out there that seems to know the right direction and is likewise the only man out there willing to fight. I'm on Team Cruz and I simply do not care if he's "Natural born" or not. We blew up that requirement when we let that snake get into the office.
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.