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.
In practicality, there are eight types of children:
l. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born in the United States. (natural born citizen)
2. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Obama's case)
3. Child of alien mother and citizen father, born in the United States.
4. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born outside the United States. (McCain's case)
5. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (Cruz' case)
6. Child of alien mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Anchor baby, questionable unless one supports birthright citizenship) (Jindal's and Rubio's case)
7. Child of alien mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (not a citizen until naturalized)
8. Child of unknown origin. (naturalized citizen)
The dichotomy argument is too narrow to have a full robust discussion of the matter. It needs to be expanded to encompass all eight scenarios within the context of the Preamble's intent to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
In other words, which of the above eight babies would you want to be President someday?
-PJ
I've looked at the evidence and believe he is, as well.
Then you believe the Liberals’ point of view that the Constitution is a living document. I do not agree.ORIGINAL INTENT is the basis of this argument. It is perfectly clear where the term “natural born citizen” came from and the reasons the Framers used it. To change its meaning, you must have an Article 5 convention and then have it ratified by the states. Such has not happened, so the original intent stands!
P.S. I do not believe in evolution either. I believe in the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,( that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness).” as in the Declaration of Independence....also drawn from Vattel.
The question of NBC status to native-born persons is completely different from the analysis of NBC status to persons born abroad.
Talking about NBC status of the native-born is off topic. So, briefly, the issue in the native-born cases turns on the construction of "subject to the jurisdiction." That is a whole 'nother and different can of worms. Wong Kim Ark, Plyler v. Doe FN 10 are the convenient precedents to start debate from.
I actually don’t think it’s entirely “too late” re BHO. The birth certificate is a fraud and if it were to be conclusively established vis-a-vis Cruz that statutory citizenship is mutually exclusive to natural born citizenship, then I think more people would realize how critical it actually is to his eligibility. Yes, he’s almost out of office now, but proving that case would devastate the left for many years to come.
The jug-ear bastard currently in the White House is not an NBC, but he was never disqualified. I consider myself a Constitutionalist, but as far as that ship has sailed. Since they did not disqualify Obama then they better try to keep Cruz out.
You conveniently omit that Jim also supports Trump, so run along and worship your Saint Cruz.
-PJ
That argument doesn't involve the anchor-baby, native-born issues; so is a subset of what you've laid out.
In the real world, there are other complicating factors. What about parents away on military assignment? People out of the country for vacation?
I'd be strict about qualifications for president. But then, I'm also one who thinks universal suffrage is a tool of the totalitarian.
Please clarify what you mean by clarify.
Or Option #2. No. Read the thread, get a dictionary and figure it out for yourself.
or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.....clearly indicates that the Framers, who were born Englishmen under the Colonies were exempt ............... The Framers became American Citizens in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.....”
I think so, but might be confusing it with another man. I got into the NBC issue from the "subject to the jurisdiction" angle when Obama's qualifications were a hot topic. I think I ran into the parts of the Congressional Record where citizenship of an elected/prospective member was being debated, and the citizenship of his parents (in the state) was an issue.
Might be two different cases though. Fascinating stuff. Every day I am amazed at how ignorant I am.
In practicality, there are nine types of children:
l. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born in the United States. (natural born citizen)
2. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Obama's case)
3. Child of alien mother and citizen father, born in the United States.
4. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born outside the United States. (McCain's case)
5. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (Cruz' case)
6. Child of alien mother and citizen father, born outside the United States. (discussed in the proviso of the Naturalization act of 1790)
7. Child of alien mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Anchor baby, questionable unless one supports birthright citizenship) (Jindal's and Rubio's case)
8. Child of alien mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (not a citizen until naturalized)
9. Child of unknown origin. (naturalized citizen)
The dichotomy argument is too narrow to have a full robust discussion of the matter. It needs to be expanded to encompass all eight scenarios within the context of the Preamble's intent to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
In other words, which of the above nine babies would you want to be President someday?
-PJ
Glad to know I'm not the only one.
This guy has been popular since before there was a United States of America. Many of us ARE and HAVE BEEN familiar with him for years. He is not a Johnny-come-lately as you seem to believe. Don’t blame your own ignorance on others.
And not a thing one of them said is the Supreme Law of the Land which is reserved to the Constitution, the Laws made by Congress and the Treaties ratified by Congress and signed by the POTUS.
That was before the election of Senators was removed from the states themselves and given to the voters.
SPOT ON !
Not if both parents are American Citizens at the time of your birth!
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.