Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."
. . .
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.
That is part of the issue as to why it needs clearing up. The Democrats WILL bring it up if Cruz is the nominee.
Nothing to do with Wapo. Everything to do with the Constitution.
New “natural born citizen” paper: sorry Ted
June 18, 2014
Mary Brigid McManamon, professor of law at Widener University School of Law has an upcoming paper in the Catholic University Law Review titled, “The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood.”
The paper argues for a strict jus soli (born in the country) interpretation of the words “natural born Citizen” in the US Constitution, but explains:
This article, however, is not a comprehensive treatment of all the questions presented by the clause. It addresses only the issue that Governor Romney and Senator Cruz present: In the eyes of early Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President of the United States?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.That isn't exactly the statement made by your opponent in argument, who said "Statutory citizenship = citizen. Common law citizen = natural born citizen." But Article IV sets out who is a constitutional citizen.
One can be pedantic and say that natural born citizen isn't defined in the constitution, but citizen (of the US) is defined, and by implication, a person who is born a citizen of one of the several states is naturally born a citizen of the US. There wold have been 13 different rules for citizenship at the time of founding.
The 14th amendment makes the definition of US citizen more uniform across the US, making everyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction a citizen. This sweeps in the children of slaves and assorted others. It also makes naturalized citizens into citizens, but that's a bit of a tautology.
My concerns are not political. They are to ensure, in the objective sense, the protections of Article II, Section 1 Clause 5 remain available into the future. I do not fear Ted Cruz. I think he would probably be among our finest POTUS. He is so intellectually and philosophically superior to all the other candidates that it almost defies comparison. Nonetheless, I believe that the harm that a demagogic, anti-constitution, sociopathic lying enemy alien combatant usurper like Obama is far greater than the good that a patriot like Cruz can do.
This situation is a dire test of my principle of the rule of law, and my commitment to it. I think that adherence to it is the correct one.
I can not believe this same argument would be made if say Hillary was the subject.
I am so fed up with situational ethics, we here all know if the other side had a detestable candidate with exactly the same birth facts there would be endless threads here explaining why he was unqualified. D@/\/\ /\/ I hate lawyers.
He argued and won nine conservative cases before the supreme court.
..............................................................
Wrong! He argued and won 5 cases and lost 4.
He deserves the right to be President more than me and the vast majority of Americans. Anyone that says different is not being honest.
.........................................................
.Since when is “Deserves the right” written in the Constitution? Hillery thinks she deserves the right to be the next president and so does Bush.
You are stating your OPINION. Everyone has one.
The constitution is not a dictionary. The only specific definition in the constitution is for treason. The framers used terms that were understood to all fairly well educated people of the time. (as in the “well regulated militia” in the 2nd amendment) They didnt include a definition for high crimes and misdeameanors either, but that hasn’t stopped impeachment proceedings. A well established principle of constitutional application is that NO words in the constitution are superfluous. The SOLE purpose of the natural born citizen requirement is to protect the office of POTUS from undue foreign influence, particularly thru a FATHER owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers were patriarchs and just viewed things that way. Natural born is a higher standard that citizen for very good constitutional reasons and rationales.
I’m not satisfied at all. And apparently a lot of other people aren’t. If the constitution wanted any citizen to become President, it would have stated so.
It says “citizen” when it talks about Congressional requirements. But it specifies “natural born citizen” for President. Which raises the question what exactly did they mean. If they meant Vatel’s Law of Nation definition for natural born, then neither Ted nor Obama are eligible. Neither had both parents who were citizens and neither can show proof of birth in the U.S..
No it is all about the agenda and the lawyers that set it. I am so sick of the whole subject we seem to be a nato of voters now that are determined to justify and underhanded trick we need to in order to advance our agenda.
Well here is an opinion, it won't in the end matter what Cruz's status is, he will not be the President, so let the wailing begin and let it be over by the time the next president is sworn in.
We have in my estimation one chance to stop the illegal invasion of our Homeland and the only candidate that has been unwavering on deporting the democratic socialist voters is Trump so do what you will, the law will no longer matter in any case, if the invasion is not stopped. Cruz's death bed conversion is not believable.
It’s not “situation ethics.”
How many Presidents have we had in 200+ years now?
Not even 50 in all that time.
And there is even no process for certifying they are “natural born,” or not, is there?
That should tell you something.
Didn’t we come up against that lack of a legal process with the current President?
We would have a much different situation if there was such a process, but what would that be like? Who would administer it? And wouldn’t it be polarized?
There aren’t, in fact, these neat and absolute black lines on this issue, like in nature there are “natural” birth parents, because it seems no one wanted to draw them, knowing the Presidency was something very rare, that people’s circumstances are unique, and to try to draw neat and absolute black lines might have unintended consequences.
So consider, what was the “natural born” description seemingly meant to exclude, and to include? Certainly “natural born” was used to include as many people with the right background as possible, and exclude all with the wrong background for the job.
What I see is that this issue is starting to do just what secular humanists hope - getting people arguing over it rather than talking about actual things that matter.
Every other justification argued on these threads count on some of those kind of judges opinions. This kid of stuff never came up until we abandoned Blacks Law and instituted precedent, the mot egregious form of tyranny because it has the appearance of codified law, at least until the next precedent setting decision.
The people arguing this are the ones protecting the Constitution under Original Intent. Insults hurled by Cruz backers resemble the liberal way of calling people names as if that would prove their point.
My remarks are correct. Yours are in error.
Heck US law isn't even Law unless they want to use it to accomplish something. Couple ranchers on Oregon can explain that to you if you have time. Then obviously the law only applies to people no in the favored class such as politicians like Hillary who didndonuffin.
Complete and utter nonsense! I saw this same kind of stuff way back during the Palin Wars. I fought it then and I'll fight it now!
Hmmnn however we do impose citizenship anchor babies, but I guess other countries have no right to impose anything on humans born on their soil like we do.
Don't be a pedant over the definition of "definition." The constitution doesn't define "president", "senator," or "court," either. But it does describe what it takes to occupy one of those slots.
Article IV Section 2 describes what it takes to occupy the slot of "US citizen."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.The constitution tells us who is a citizen of the US, and if one is the citizen of a state at birth, then one is constitutionally speaking, naturally a citizen of the US at birth.
So you are saying he was an honorable man in Concealing the fact that he was a Canadian citizen from the voters of Texas when he ran for the senate?
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.