Posted on 03/23/2015 8:36:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Now that Ted Cruz is officially in the Presidential race, you may rest assured that some of the same people who considered it an insult of titanic proportions to even ask to see President Obama’s birth certificate will be kicking off a similar conversation regarding the Texas Senator. Because, you know… he’s a gosh darn foreigner. For the few of you who may have missed it, Cruz was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba but his mother was a US citizen. As our colleague Guy Benson explained over a year ago, this one isn’t even a question.
For the uninitiated, the Texas Senator and conservative stalwart was born in Calgary, Canada — prompting some to insist that he’s not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. But there are only two types of citizens under the law: Natural born Americans (from birth), and naturalized Americans, who undergo the legal process of becoming a US citizen. Cruz never experienced the latter proceedings because he didn’t need to; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, rendering Cruz an American citizen from the moment of his birth abroad. Meanwhile, Cruz hasn’t even indicated if he has any designs to pursue a White House run — he’s got his hands full in the United States Senate. National Review has more on this preposterous “debate:”
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen.
This was the same conversation that took place in 2007 and 2008 regarding John McCain. (McCain was born in Panama.) At the time, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed on to a simple resolution (along with the rest of the Senate) declaring that Senator McCain was “a natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Given the current, rather toxic climate inside the beltway, I have to wonder if Ted Cruz will be offered the same consideration?
Perhaps a better question, though we’ve kicked this one around here before, is whether or not the Supreme Court will ever rule on this definition once and for all so we can just be done with it. True, we have some federal laws on the books which cover such things and they are frequently referenced when these discussions come up. And there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that this interpretation is any way unconstitutional.
And why would it be? The prevailing wisdom seems to at least have the benefit of sounding reasonable to the layman. Going back to the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that there are only two types of citizens recognized. You are either a citizen at the time of your birth or you become one later by going through the naturalization process. If we have to pick one of these two classes to be “natural born” it seems a rather easy choice.
But, yet again, that answer won’t be “permanent” (for lack of a better word) without the Supremes weighing in on it. And for that to happen, someone would have to challenge it. And that someone would have to have standing to even bring the challenge. You know… the more I think about it, maybe we should just stick with what we have now.
No one needs to take my word for anything. If I do indeed suffer from cognitive dissonance, then I urge interested readers to research the issue for themself.
The section of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that DiogenesLamp is referring to and that was ruled upon by the Supreme Court in Rogers v Bellei said: “b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of this section, shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United States for at least five years. . ..”
How can anyone believe that might apply to Senator Ted Cruz, who has lived in the United States continuously since age 4?
Guess all you CAN do is keep pointing it out, hoping they eventually 'get it'. (sigh)
There is the disturbing possibility that no court really looked at the law in depth because they did not want to be seen as taking a serious look at the issue because the defendant was half-black and because of the campaign of ridicule launched by the Great Pretender and his operatives. This would be a substitution of a “rule of ridicule” for the Rule of Law. There is no reason to believe that Senator Cruz could successfully do the same thing. It clearly appears that there are leftists willing to press the issue, despite their general contempt for the Constitution.
And yet the Founders and the Framers who were in the first Congress in 1790 specifically made an exception to those needing naturalization to become citizens: “And the children of citizens of the United States who may be born beyond the Sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” President Washington signed that bill into law.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
Good. Best advice i've seen from you so far. :)
Says in part:
“Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records"
And a whole lot more.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords
Particularly noteworthy is this:
"(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch."
Clearly, Omugabe's PAST, prior to becoming a candidate for Senator, could not possibly contain anything in the way of "records that might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch."
So he requested sealing of records not covered by the statute.. e.g. His entire life's educational records.
How, exactly does that record "impair National Security?"
And this :
"Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist."
Who was the archivist at the time?
And the "identity of specific materials" for which executive privilege is sought, can be anything the Manchurian Candidate decided? Even when he's a proven habitual liar? Perhaps criminally so?
RE: There is the disturbing possibility that no court really looked at the law in depth because they did not want to be seen as taking a serious look at the issue because the defendant was half-black and because of the campaign of ridicule launched by the Great Pretender and his operatives
Nobody with standing actually CHALLENGED Obama’s candidacy when he first ran. THAT was the problem. Had someone with standing done that, it would have been in the courts in early 2008.
And he was a subject of Great Britain.
The United States of America (and its Constitution, remember that?) did not officially exist until 1893.
Yes, but the the SC refused to rule on the question.
They didn't disagree.
Not the same thing.
But you know that.
Ah!
But No president may issue a preemptive pardon. And if Omugabe hasn't been convicted of any crime yet... ?
Hairplugs, or any new president, would expose himself to almost instant impeachment. Millions of real American Citizens would insist on it.
And and I also know that the Founders and Framers who were in Congress in 1790 made a very specific exception to needing naturalization for American children born overseas to citizen parents whose fathers had resided in the U.S.
Anyone who would try to deny natural born citizen status to the children born abroad of U.S. citizens is not in sync with the original thinking of the Founders.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 is the only statute in U.S. history to use the term “natural born citizen.” The Act distinguished foreigners who needed naturalization from those who qualified as natural born.
There is no exception.
That's why Jury Nullification is more valuable now than it ever was.
If the Constitutional right to "trial by jury" has been nullified by illegal Executive Order," I am not aware of it.
What you appear to have forgotten is that when the Supreme Court denies a petition the opportunity to be heard, the ruling of the lower court stands.
No, she recorded the birth at the US Consulate, her status as a US citizen conferred to him, his US citizenship at birth and as such was naturally born a US citizen. This is no different than a person being born here in the US also registering the birth.
That is correct. Since 1790 the children of American citizens who may be born beyond the Sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States have always been considered as natural birn citizens. No exceptions. Just as the Founders and the Framers wanted it.
Cruz is a US citizen at birth, qualified to be President. Congress agrees. The Courts agree.
So FR NBC freaks, please go back to your fever swamps and play with your phony Venn diagrams there. Don't crawl out again to encourage this new left wing NBC crowd.
Much too ignorant a post to warrant a serious response.
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.