Posted on 01/09/2016 8:42:14 PM PST by randita
OTTUMWA, Iowa — Donald J. Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric about Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president on Saturday, suggesting that because he was born in Canada there were unanswered questions about whether he met the constitutional requirement to be a “natural-born citizen.’’
“You can’t have a person who’s running for office, even though Ted is very glib and he goes out and says ‘Well, I’m a natural-born citizen,’ but the point is you’re not,†Mr. Trump said while campaigning in Clear Lake, Iowa.
Mr. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother, which automatically conferred American citizenship. Most legal experts agree that satisfies the requirement to be a “natural-born citizen,’’ a term that was not defined by the founders.
Mr. Trump, who began raising questions about Mr. Cruz’s ability to be president earlier in the week, said on Saturday that Mr. Cruz would have to go to court to get a “declaratory judgment†about his eligibility “or you have a candidate who just cannot run.’’ (Mr. Cruz could need a judgment if someone filed a lawsuit to challenge his candidacy and a court agreed to take up the question.)
With polls showing the race in Iowa tightening, and Mr. Cruz leading Mr. Trump by 4 percentage points in a Fox News poll released on Friday, Mr. Trump has returned to an issue that first gained him notoriety years ago when he challenged President Obama’s citizenship.
On Saturday night, before the final stop on a six-day bus tour of Iowa, Mr. Cruz said: “Under longstanding federal law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Mark Levin isn’t the Judiciary.
He's produced his birth certificate showing he was born in the US. He was a citizen of the state he was born in when he was born there, by dint of his parents having taken up legal, permanent residence in that state. That makes him also born a citizen of the US, under Article IV, Sec. 2 of the constitution.
Now, do that with Cruz, and the text of the constitution, You may use the 14th amendment if you want to. You may not use a statute to make your analysis.
True that!
But we are not discussing citizenship here, are we.....
What we are discussing is a restricted class of certain citizens born to American citizens while abroad. They come home to US soil and they are citizens, but for two restrictions that they cannot get back (according to some). Those two restrictions are the public service as President or Vice president.
This restriction is being argued as valid when at the very same moment in time, a Mexican or Canadian, or any country you care to mention can walk across the border pregnant and drop a kid on US soil and that kid is a natural born US citizen with full citizenship and can run for President..
That is what is being argued and supported by all sorts of crap from Vattel to John Jay. We are having this argument because the founders changed the draft language to include the term natural born and did not leave a paper trail to define how it was to be used or the authority to use it on whom...
That is whay I was trying to say in a more simple format for the puzzled observer.
Let me think for a sec......to ponder this judiciary question...
Hmmmmmm
Was it the judiciary that found a right to a abortion in the constitution?
Was it the judiciary that found that homosexuals had a right to marriage?
Was it the judiciary that just today found a right to wear military medals on their uniform that they did not earn?
Ping me.....let me know how valid judiciary opinion and misc dicta is in determining the question of “natural born” based on these three examples and 100s more if you want them.
The Judiciary does not belong on the same page as Mark Levin. He makes them look like the fools they are.
Has SCOTUS ever referenced Mark Levin as a writer on public law? They have Vattel numerous times.
You claim Mark Levin is the known expert on public law but at the same instant ignore Vattel.
Rogers v Bellei, Wong Kim Ark, Luria, Minor v Happersett and others do not help Rafael Cruz Jr’s., eligibility claims.
Why do you push a flawed eligibility candidate?
1790 never applied to Rafael Cruz Jr., you’re setting up Cruz for embarrassment.
This will be his Waterloo.
I'm deliberately trying to avoid discussing that point in argument over Cruz's citizenship. I think it muddies the water and creates confusion.
I believe I'm justified in this, simply because analyzing the citizenship of a person board abroad, vs. the citizenship of a person born in the US (both as understood by the constitution) resolves, basically, by figuring out if Cruz is a citizen under the constitution, without reference to anything else. If he isn't a citizen, he can't be a NBC.
The issue embodied in the blockquote, your words above, requires assigning different labels to persons born in the US. An that chore, in turn, requires resort to material outside of the constitution, unless "subject to the jurisdiction" has a definite meaning (it doesn't), as well as other factors associated with the NBC term or art.
Back in the real world, we are on a track where the public is going to DEMAND the constitution be changed to allow naturalized citizens to hold the office.
I to should just leave it, however, not without pointing this flaw of interpretation you have. You stated as a matter of what you believe to be fact:
“not the US Code where the authority is”
This is where your argument begins to fail because the “Code” itself does not have any authority, it is only evidence of the authority of the many statutes it represents.
“One way to know the value of something is by the effort made to protect it”
Have a nice day
We need to get away from the born here or born there argument as it simply is not the determining factor according to ALL the statutes passed on the subject.
The determining factor for ‘natural born’ is defined in the words of the 14th Amendment ... ‘not subject to any other jurisdiction’. The 1866 Statute that is the authority of the 14th Amendment states it this way ... ‘not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty’.
At birth, Ted Cruz owed allegiance to Canada, therefore, Ted is not a natural born citizen, he is a citizen by statute because of that Canadian citizenship. It has nothing to do with where he was born, it had to do with the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Now had his father been a US citizen, there wouldn’t even be a need of this debate as Cruz would be eligible as Canada’s laws at that time did not confer citizenship on the child unless the father had taken legal steps to either become a citizen or permanent resident of Canada, which obviously, Cruz Sr. had done prior to Jr.’s birth.
Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett (1874).
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.â€
Both the Minor (1874) & Elk (1884) cases pertained to the meaning of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment and thus we continue with Chief Justice Waite’s deciding opinion as to who the “persons†born or naturalized & “subject to the jurisdiction†are.
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children†are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,â€
And the 14th Amendment is merely the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ratified as a constitutional amendment with the 1866 Act itself remaining in tact and acting as the chief language used to enforce the citizenship laws until 1940 when Congress finally consolidated the two laws into one. We’ll touch more on this in a bit, but until then make a note that Title 8 of the US Code defining persons who were born citizens read as follows in the highlighted opening of the 1866 Act until 1940.
“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.â€
In the Elk deciding opinion written by Justice Gray, we find the dicta of the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) that was accepted unanimously by that court, including all the dissenters.
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.â€â€¦Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and BradÂley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constituÂtionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which proÂvided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
Thus, the Slaughter-House dicta was adopted in the holding of the opinion in the Elk case.
My posts here have been simplistic and incomplete on purpose - but I genuinely thank you for sharing citations, your thoughts, and so forth. Education never stops. Just know that the words in my posts don't aim to be a sort of comprehensive analysis.
Hone in on this part of my last post:
In the Elk deciding opinion written by Justice Gray, we find the dicta of the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) that was accepted unanimously by that court, including all the dissenters.
“[t]he phrase, Ëœsubject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
“the children of ..... citizens and subjects of foreign States” ...
which means NO anchor babies, if the parents are not citizens then neither are the children. BOTH of Rubio’s parents were Cuban citizens when Rubio was born, therefore, Rubio is an ANCHOR baby who became a US citizen when his father became a naturalized US citizen.
As the Constitution say, We the People .... and OUR Posterity.
I understand that your posts do not aim to be comprehensive. Mine also are not comprehensive on the topic either, that is why we must ‘focus’ our arguments on the ‘one key’ factor that determines NBC and that is ...
... at the time of the child’s birth, was the child a citizen of a foreign nation and if so, then that child is not a ‘natural born’ citizen, let alone a citizen at birth. Until the US citizen parent acts on that child’s behalf in conferring, through statute law, their citizenship upon the child, that the child is an alien. Had the Cruz’s chosen to remain in Canada, the only way for Ted to become a US citizen would have ben for him to go to the US Embassy in Canada, renounce his Canadian citizenship and then meet all the requirements of residency, etc that is required of one born abroad of one citizen parent.
Where only one parent is a citizen, the child at birth may or may not be a citizen, it depends upon where he is born and the citizenship laws of the foreign nation of the foreign parent. And even this all hinges upon whether or not the parents are married and international law, from time immemorial, has concluded that where parents are married, the children follow the nationality of the father.
300 MILLION PEOPLE AND WE CAN ONLY FIND ONE CANADIAN BORN PERSON TO BE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA?
I reject Vattel’s opinions on who or what is a natural born or more particularly how citizenship should pass from parent to child.
I don’t reject everything Vattel wrote.
Furthermore, I don’t agree that on this particular matter, that he had much influence on the founders.
I only pointed out that arguing with the IRS over something that is either included on the definition section of the IRS code, or is omitted for whatever reason, is a argument without any standing at all because the IRS freely admits that the definitions should not be taken as complete.
If you are going to draw swords with the IRS bean counters and regulatory people, you need a stronger argument then what is printed in their definition sections of the code.
Lastly, when you request your money to be returned, you could have just written that Mickey Mouse advised you to ask, and they would have dutifully processed your refund request.
What I am saying is that this apparent successful request, is meaningless. Eventually, your file will end up in the offices where they actually read the filings.
Wow that is a lot of legal gibberish, and lots of hoops to jump through to prove Cruz can legally be President even though his father wasn’t and he was born in Canada.
Too bad in a nation of over THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE, we can’t find ONE person who WAS BORN HERE with TWO PARENTS who were born HERE!
Because that would definitely be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, and you wouldn’t have to pull out case law and lawyers to prove it..........oh wait......there are others running for President of the United States of Canada...ah I mean AMERICA....WHO WHERE BORN IN AMERICA TO PARENTS WHO WHERE BORN IN AMERICA.....I wonder who they are?
I bet one of them is Donald Trump.
K.I.S.S. is something we say in the military. No reason it can’t apply to who is a natural born citizen.
Good to see ya' on the Forum crackin' skulls!
STOP making sense! LOL!
Pondering your remarks, I think you are totally correct. I think the "technically correct" view will confuse people, but I like it.
First an analogy. People naturally view property as the right to possess. But the true nature of property is the right to exclude others. US citizenship can be viewed in a similar way.
The default is that the US will defer to some other source of citizenship. In the US, originally, this was citizenship in one of the several states. For birth abroad, if some other nation grants citizenship according to its laws, the US won't (and actually lacks the power to) monkey with it.
Looking at things that way resolves issues such as citizens on sojourn.
There may be legal customs and norms associated with soldiers abroad, too; although following the default rule, the host countries' citizenship laws have play.
Thanks for your patience and tutelage.
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.