Posted on 11/28/2015 8:27:12 AM PST by Kaslin
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been rising in the polls of late, not only in Iowa, but nationally as well. (And high time, if you ask me.) It’s far too soon to declare him a resident of the top tier aside Trump with so few samples, but the prospect of his being a serious contender for the nomination can’t be discounted. And if he wins the Party’s endorsement, he may be in fine shape to take on Hillary Clinton and then be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. So then what?
Well, at least according to Alan Grayson, we should file a beautiful lawsuit to challenge his qualifications to hold the office. (Mediaite)
Florida Congressman Alan Grayson told radio host Alan Colmes Wednesday that if Ted Cruz is elected president, he "will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he's unqualified for the job" according to the Constitution.
Cruz was born in Canada to a native-born American mother, making the presidential candidate a dual Canadian-American citizen. It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.
Lamenting the "appalling choices" Republicans have to choose among, Grayson told Colmes the Republican race "resolved itself into this weird reality show."
Even if Grayson is just grousing and looking for a way to throw darts at Cruz, I think this is a great idea and we should absolutely move forward with it in the event that Ted Cruz is elected. In fact, it should start the day after he’s sworn in because this would no doubt take quite a while. I don’t say this because I have any doubt that Cruz would qualify under our current interpretation of the law.. he would. Under Title 8 rules we have what is currently a broadly accepted definition who who qualifies as a natural citizen at the time of their birth as opposed to someone who is naturalized. Cruz would most likely qualify under section (e) but most certainly under section (g)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States 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
There’s just one problem with deciding that Cruz is qualified based on that snippet of legislation: it’s never been challenged all the way up through the courts and this issue keeps coming up over and over again. I’m not even talking about Barack Obama here; you may recall that Congress actually had to go to the trouble of passing a resolution in 2008 stating that John McCain was a natural born citizen. (McCain was born in Panama to a military family on assignment and his parents were citizens.)
So why not just pass another amendment like that for Ted Cruz? Because it doesn’t solve anything. The phrase natural born citizen is essentially unique in the writings of the Founders and they didn’t do a very good job of explaining themselves. If we had a ruling from the Supremes to put into the books not just on Ted Cruz in particular, but on the exact meaning of the phrase we could be done with this once and for all. It seems self evident that the Founders drew a clear distinction between two types of citizens; natural born and naturalized. Cruz, like McCain, never went through the naturalization process since it was always assumed they were citizens at the time of their birth, so they are either natural born citizens or they’re illegal aliens.
No matter how often we scratch our heads over the various rulings handed down from the Supremes these days, I can’t see where we lose on this one. Let them nail this thing down once and for all so we can be done with it without having to go through another constitutional amendment. It won’t affect President Cruz one bit and we can spare future generations all of this nonsense.
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
To put it another way -
My grandparents came from Portugal. The became naturalized citizens.
My father, born in the US, after his parents had become naturalized, was a natural born citizen.
See, really very simple.
It is obvious that you are totally clueless and don't know the difference between natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen.
I was sworn in as a Naturalized US Citizen on June 12, 1977 in Junction City, KS. The ceremony was held on June 14, 1977 in Abilene, KS at the Dwight D. Eisenhower center. I received an American Passport after I became an American Citizen.
One thing that many do not know, simply because it is a bit obscure, is that way back when naturalization laws were being written, it was decided/declared that a child born to a parent(s) while outside of the US in service to their country would have the same exact standing as if native born in the US to that parent. It was the children who were born to regular travelers and business travelers who were (back in the late 1700s) born aliens if born outside the US.
It is for that reason that John McCain actually didn’t need any special “resolution”.
Sigh ~
Yes, you are a naturalized citizen. You are not a natural born citizen. What point are you trying to make?
And that is factual.
Maybe you did not register your son with the American Consulate, which I assume was in Frankfurt, or perhaps Kaiserslautern?
Yes, he was registered with the American Consulate.
Yes, I am not disagreeing with you at all on that point. And congratulations on becoming a citizen. As I understand from a friend, it is not an easy thing to do.
Nice and succinct.
Different Ox don't yah know.
Natural born citizen is a subset of citizen. The only place it comes into play is Art. I Sec II. eligibilty for President. A natural born citizen is one who can be no other. Born here of citizens and needs no statutory citation.
They intended to insure that there would be no foreign influence. No divided loyalties. If you can be some other citizen at birth, by geography or parentage, you cannot be a natural born citizen.
Before 2008 you couldn't find 6 people that agreed with that. I was always taught that NBC required two citizen parents, but we have grown so much in our multicultural society that a citizen of the world is much more to our liking.
Don't bother posting tons of legal opinions, none of them matter unless and until the SC rules and then it still won't matter. Two citizen parents now and forever.
Yes, I guess you are right.
Sorry, but no. Birther history is not an honest study.
But the Constitution is clear that no senator and no Secretary of State may accept aggrandizement of any sort from any foreign government.
The Constitution is also clear that (although by tradition and state laws all of every state’s Electors are popularly elected) the Electors are, in constitutional terms, appointed according to the manner defined by each state’s legislature. It follows that electors who are placed on the ballot, are nominated with the approval of each state’s legislature. Each state legislature must therefore look itself in the mirror and realize that if Hillary Clinton and her corrupt hundreds of millions of dollars wins the electors of its state, they bear responsibility for that result.
The contrast between the corruption behind the money the Clintons are able to deploy, and the straining at gnats and swallowing of camels involved in McCain-Feingold regulation of donations by Americans which the Constitution is entirely silent about might almost make a Democrat blush.
Almost.
Correction to your post -
George W. Romney, Mitt’s father, although born in Mexico to American citizen parents who were Mormon missionaries, actually did run for President (more precisely, the Republican Party nominee) in 1968.
Richard Nixon won the nomination and went on to beat Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace.
“There is a procedure for a child broad to acquire birth citizenship, note I did not say natural born citizenship, just citizenship at birth.”
I personally believe that, in the era of the founders, these two terms had distinct meanings and in reality still do but most freepers think that they know that anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. I hesitate to even post this because saying this will probably bring out a few of those to tell me all they know about the subject.
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.