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 ...
“The Donald won’t do it. He is teasing someone on the DEMOCRAT side”
Are you really so naive to think the Democrats weren’t already ready to go long ago?
Furthermore, I am compelled to ask...
Does the Canadian articles of confederation include an “anchor baby” type clause wherein, any child born of foreign parents yet residing on Canadian soil are automatically Canadian citizens?
We must be diligent about PROJECTING US Constitutional ideas upon other countries not subject to that same US Constitution.
Eh?
McCain brings it up about Cruz but not Obama? Wouldn’t even let Palin loose to bring it up. What a pathetic candidate that guy was.
So the issue is nothing new. What happens when ‘heavyweights’ decide to bring suit, say a ‘crazed’ Dim attorney/Congressperson from Florida or others with ‘influence’?? Instead of being merely a policy distraction it could become a legal distraction. Cruz needs to squash it now.
And Trumps sister is an appellant Jurist Emeritus and a close friend of Sam Alito SO.... Until there is a judicial ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizenship all relationships are moot
Do believe that Cruz could personally ask for a decision. It would be the responsible thing to do. Get it behind him
..and to keep the story in the news and perpetuate or create doubt, especially after the questions regarding Imam Obama’s eligibility/citizenship.
Citizenship is not NAtural Born Citizenship
Apples and Oranges
Me too.
U.S. Nationals are not eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States of America. “Citizens of the United States at birth” are not eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States, unless they are also natural born citizens by virtue of being born in the United States with both parents being U.S. citizens at the time of birth to exclude any and all natural born, jus sanguinis and jus soli, allegiances to foreign sovereigns. U.S. Citizenship for a child born in a foreign jurisdiction must be requested from the U.S. Department of State by application to recognize the foreign birth, and such a U.S. Department of State recognition of U.S. citizenship by foreign birth is subject to legal revocation. Such a revocation of U.S. citizenship by the U.S. Department of State is not possible in the case of a natural born U.S. citizen, because the natural born allegiance to the United States resulting from having two U.S. citizen parents and birth within the United States precludes any possibility of foreign citizenship and allegiance at birth.
So was Ted Cruz. Justice Scalia said Ted Cruz was the brightest clerk ever to serve the Supreme Court.
I don't know the details on that, whether legal residency must exist, etc. But Cruz was born a Canadian citizen. He has a Canadian government certificate that proves renunciation of that Citizenship. Certificate of Renunciation of Canadian Citizenship
Cruz father was a resident of the U.S. for years before moving to Canada for his job.
The problem with O’s mother, she had not lived in the U.S. for 14 years prior to the age of eighteen and thus could not confer citizenship if O was born out of the country.
Where’d that come from?
I’m not surprised. Cruz is brilliant with the highly educated.
I’ve been studying original source documents on the question of eligibility ever since I had to write a paper on the subject during Goldwater’s 1964 campaign. Lawyers have been doing their utmost to blur the distinctive attributes of citizenship for centuries, which is directly responsible for causing so much confusion and contradictions in the way the laws of citizenship have been abused to benefit attorneys and their clients.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
It could cause a problem, never been litigated in Court.
That is why a donor who is actually harmed by loss of money on fraudulent terms should have standing to sue the candidate to prove his eligibility, and therefore prove that campaign solicitations are not fraudulent.
-PJ
Obfuscate much?
Trump hasn't said that was the issue.
But of course you know that.
You just want to spread a lie.
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.