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 ...
No, he did not. He explained citizenship correctly but citizenship of the candidate is not the issue of "natural born". Natural born refers to the birth of the candidate's parents, not the candidate.
The founders added that requirement because they feared a president might have a divided loyalty if both parents were not American citizens.
If a child is born a Citizen of the United States and meets the other qualifications of age and residency, then he is eligible to be elected to the Office of the President of the United States.
Period.
Now take your silly hypothetical to another forum.
What is so silly about the hypothetical?
Didn't a British sovereign once marry a divorced American citizen and abdicate? Had he not abdicated and instead given birth to an heir, would that heir be eligible or not?
Are you unable to answer the question?
This debate is about Ted Cruz, NOT your red herring.
I thought the debate was about the meaning of a Constitutional restriction.
Is the heir to the throne in my hypothetical eligible or not? If you believe that the heir to the British Throne can be eligible to be President, why not just say so?
You lead me to believe that your opinion is that the heir would NOT be eligible.
PLEASE reread what Jim posted:
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.
People have come up with all sorts of nutty ideas over the past six years about this topic. I know it started in an attempt to remove Obama, but IT'S A DEAD ISSUE.
Your hypothetical is a silly, inane, stupid and impossible hypothetical which is designed merely to distract from the subject of this thread, which is whether Ted Cruz is eligible and not whether a hypothetical Prince of Wales would be eligible to be King.
Now get lost troll.
If that were the case, the Founders would not have bothered to change the original proposed presidential eligibility requirement of 'born a Citizen' to 'natural born Citizen'.
Natural law is clear about who is a natural born Citizen - those born in the country to Citizen parents.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
He did answer your question.
I'll answer it again. If an American citizen marries the Queen of England (however dried up she is at the moment) and they have a child, then that child is eligible for the presidency because that child is a citizen by birth and not by naturalization.
I'll ask you a question now: Anwar al Awlaki had a child in the USA while he was a student here. That child is born inside our country and is a US citizen by birth.
Do you have problems with that child being eligible for the presidency?
No. There is absolutely no reason that the scenario is "impossible", just incredibly unlikely. It's unreasonable, I think, however, to suggest that the language of the Constitution doesn't somehow cover the case in question.
Could the heir to the British throne, if he had an American citizen father, be eligible to become President?
Despite how unlikely or inane you might think the question, does it not have an answer? Are you hesitant because you recognize that a "yes" answer is ridiculous on its face and would suggest that our Founders didn't fear another monarchy; and you recognize that a "no" answer would require an explanation as to how and when the rules changed such that some other foreign citizen might be eligible.
Fine. It never occurred to me that our Founders included the language regarding "natural born citizen" but intended such a thing. I am quite surprised.
Fine, IF the heir to the British throne was born to one American and one British parent, and IF that person chose to live in America to meet the residency restrictions, and IF that person somehow was nominated for president and IF the British Parliament somehow assented, then this heir WOULD be eligible to be president. That being said, for the past century American presidents have had FAR MORE influence over British foreign policy than the British monarchs.
You might be interested in the nutter theory that one of the Rothschilds was the actual father of Queen Victoria and that she then had an affair with another Rothschild who was the father of King Edward VII. Other Rothschilds then fathered Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler's father. You see, this was all a ploy by the Rothschilds to control the world because they knew in the case of Stalin and Hitler that these children of destitute peasants would somehow become powerful dictators. Many feel that these same "evil Jews" somehow figured out that a half-black baby born in a then-segregated America was somehow destined to be President of the United States, but that they first had to fabricate a tale while this baby was still an infant to disguise the specifics of his birth. There are plenty of websites that discuss such conspiracy, you would be right at home there.
Exam with great scrutiny why the founders added the "natural born" requirement for presidential candidates but not for congressional candidates.
Seriously, do you have an answer?
What an absurd straw man. It would be enough that they did exactly that because they merely wanted him to have the advantage of American citizenship.
This sounds similar to the case of Obama. His father was not a citizen and his mother was. At the time I believe there were statutes which covered whether or not Obama's mother was able to pass on citizenship. THAT is not "natural born".
The status of Awlaki as a student would not in any way diminish his loyalty to a foreign power nor would it eliminate the conflict of loyalties in his children.
I would say that such a child would NOT be eligible.
And you're hearing such an opinion from one who has two grandchildren born of a foreign national. I am convinced that neither of my grandchildren should be eligible. After Obama, however, anything goes.
There was NEVER a question of his mother's citizenship.
Even nuttier than that was the widespread practice of the various royal families of Europe inter-marrying for the very purpose of creating alliances and conflicts of interest that would serve their purposes.
I really don't think our Founders wanted that tainting the Presidency.
Just how would the assent of the British Parliament play a part in the Constitutional eligibility of a person to become President? I don't remember any such restriction in the Constitution.
This has been asked and answered ad nauseam.
The Founders were okay with a NATURALIZED citizen (e.g. a person born in another country to non-American parents) being elected to Congress. This has happened on multiple occasions. These people ARE NOT eligible to be president and NOBODY ever suggested they are. Dalip Singh Saund was a member of Congress, he was never eligible to be president.
There certainly WERE questions about her ability to convey citizenship.
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.
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.