Posted on 01/07/2016 6:17:01 AM PST by Perdogg
Donald Trump’s comment Cruz may not be constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States has sparked discussion on the Constitution’s Natural Born Clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
..makes him look petty—he should leave that one alone...
The virtual definition of a concern troll.
Address a potential problem before it becomes a problem.
This article makes the case that Ted Cruz is indeed a natural born citizen—whether one takes a conservative (originalist) or liberal (Living Constitution) view.
The article then concludes with:
One of the few persons who would likely have standing to sue over Cruz’s Article II eligibility would be another Republican candidate running for the GOP nomination. If Donald Trump doubts that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen, he can file suit immediately in U.S. district court. A federal judge would almost certainly expedite consideration of the case, and any appeal would likely be decided on an emergency basis.
Trump could resolve this matter quickly, if he believes this is a genuine issue
B.S.
Coulter clerked for a federal appellate judge on the 8th Circuit.
Cruz was clerk to SCOTUS Chief Justice Rehnquist.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided
, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(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:
Provided
, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Liz explains Cruz’ dual-citizen history:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3380362/posts?page=193#193
Coulter: Cruz is not a natural born citizen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3380362/posts
Her tweet ...
NYT: Cruz was born outside the U.S. to 1 American parent: ‘Under the Constitution this makes him a ‘natural born citizen.’ Absolutely false [unquote]
The Constitution, Art. II, says in pertinant part: “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;”
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead and likely to remain that way, we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak here of “natural born citizens” and elsewhere, separately of “citizens”? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. [footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throught much of the world and the Founders wished to forstall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
Too late.
The Electoral College confirmation of BHObama (AKA: Obamugabe) and the willing accomplices in the House of Representatives fully ^negated^ the natural born citizen requirements of the US Constitution.
NBC no longer matters, according to current legal precedent. Angela Merkel could run for POTUS without any legal challenge if she receives a plurality of the popular vote.
Justice Roberts has found that a plurality of votes can and will negate any Constitutional requirements.
“It [Naturalization Act of 1790] also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Wonder why the “right of citizenship did not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States” was left out?
Update ...
‘Ann Coulter, for Cruz citizenship before she was against it!’ — TexasCajun
Ann Coulter mocked for contradictory tweets about Ted Cruz birtherism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3380437/posts
The blowhard is always talking. Trump is such a NYC jerk.
What I didn't hear about until today is that Congress passed another law in 1795 clarifying citizenship in which they stated that children born to one US parent outside of the US were "born citizens", but left out the word "natural". That would seem to raise at least an argument that makes it less cut and dried than the author makes out. Also what happens if state Democrat officials refuse to put Cruz' name on the ballot? Then Cruz would have to go to court to force them to do so. It could drag on through the election and make Gore v. Bush in 2000 look like a picnic. Does anyone here think the Dems wouldn't do that?
I am not going to read all that, I can just say that adopting a code for naturalization does not override the Constitution requirements to be president.
‘Ann Coulter, for Cruz citizenship before she was against it!’ — TexasCajun
Ann Coulter mocked for contradictory tweets about Ted Cruz birtherism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3380437/posts
[Sorry to get that wrong about ‘surpreme’ court. It’s from fuzzy memory and I repeated it for decades. You finally corrected me.]
Close to two decades anyway. Funny how things like that go uncorrected for so long.
There were 2 challenges to Ted Cruz’s eligibility brought before the election board in New Hampshire in an effort to keep Cruz’s name off the ballot.
Yup. IMO Cruz should squash this now. That ‘shark’ he keeps referring to could actually be a fully armed sub....
Trump has questioned Cruz’s eligibility many times. See, for example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3380740/posts
It’s an ongoing thing for Trump, to plant seeds of doubt, to continually insinuate that Cruz is not eligible.
How is this not an issue?
Wasn’t the entire issue about Obama being born in Kenya this precise problem?
Now it’s not a problem?
/confused. for real.
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.