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.
-PJ
The naturalization act was amended, removing the sentence about “natural born”, and, whatever the case, would have only given such a status— if that was the intent— through the father.
The Mexican baby would by misapplication of the 14th be a US citizen but the baby would not be natural born citizen (NBC) that requires two citizen parents (some might argue US father would be enough via original intent) in addition to being born on US soil.
The Trumpswabs argument is that anchor babies are natural born and eligible while a citizen born to a citizen outside the US is not. They are as stupid as the day is long.
About your tagline, answer me this.
Was Ted Cruz a Canadian citizen until about 18 months ago?
Why the answer is, yes he was. So, how can you be natural born citizen and also hold Canadian citizenship? The answer is you can not hold duel citizenship and still be considered a natural born American citizen.
Now, do I think Ted Cruz is an honorable man, why yes I do, would he make a good president, I think so. Does he meet eligibility requirements, unfortunately no he does not.
If 0bongo be legit den Cruz be too!
==========================================
BACKSTORY Cruz was born in Canada to a Canadian father and a Delaware-born American mother......thus making Cruz a dual Canadian-American citizen. Texans elected him to the US Senate not knowing he was a dual Canadian citizen.
It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator publicly renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.
Cruz consistently depicted himself as "latino" Yet his family bgrnd indicates only his father is Spanish; his mother is of two nationalities, Italian and Irish from each of her parents.
Cruz ran in Texas as a latino (which has a wealth of latino votes). Cruz even convinced the Senate biographer that he was the first latino elected to the Senate (besides Rubio).
As the immigration issue grew negative in the world of politics, being known as a latino has lost its luster.
===============================================
WIKI The 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, noted that the natural born citizen clause is "a means of security against foreign influence" and that "[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."
=============================================
NOTE At the time, King George, and lordly England, were the colonists' boogeymen. It was feared the wealthy Brits could surreptitiously buy their way into our new country's councils and wreak havoc.
====================================================
OLD THINGS SEEM SUDDENLY NEW AGAIN Cruz's wife is a Goldman Sachs exec.
Mrs Cruz served on the North American Union task force, and supported their report called---'Building a North American Community."
The North/South border effort was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
Translated into English, that means forget US sovereignty....just eradicate US borders.
Canada is under the jurisdiction of England.
Quite the contrary -- the fact remains, Cruz is eligible. Under the Nationalities Act, his mother's status as an American citizen who had been an American citizen for at lest 10 years, at lest 5 of them since the age of 14, makes her son a natural-born citizen, regardless of his place of birth.
This means Cruz is eligible regardless, but it makes 0bama's place of birth critical, since his mom was only 18 when he was born, and therefore could not have been a citizen for at least five years after the age of 14.
Mark Levin explained all this a week or so ago.
This entire issue is a distraction to keep us from discussing actual issues. it shows how afraid of Cruz the Establishment and the Trumpkins are. They know that if their candidates' records are exposed, they'll lose.
That’s utter nonsense. Our legal system is based on English common law. We imported countless concepts from the English common law into our own system. Sure there are significant ways in which our constitutional system of government differed and differs from theirs, but those are the exceptions that prove the general rule that we inherited the English common law system and continue to use it to this day.
No Matter if its Canada, Germany or the Panama Canal Zone.
Had Cruz been born in 1921 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1922, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.
Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.
The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in its entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman SCOTUS decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings. The framers were patriarchs who believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship of the father.
The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.
Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.
Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and its people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical sociopathic usurper demagogue Obama.
Wasn’t the language changed six months later to remove the term “Natural Born”? And even if the first or 103rd congress defines “Natural Born”, it’s the intent of the writers of the Constitution that count. Congress doesn’t get to rewrite the constitution by redefining it’s terms.
Vatel’s law of nations defined natural born long before the first congress did. And there is evidence that Vatel’s was relied on in writing the constitution.
And if Trump is wrong, why are there so many people questioning Cruz’s eligibility?
And so the law had been changed by the time Cruz was born. At the time the constitution was written, women didn't have the right too vote or many others either.
Not only is the Naturalization Act of 1790 irrelevant to the question (a statute cannot change the Constitution), but it was repealed five years later in favor of another one that was clearly did not apply to the question of constitutional eligibility to the Presidency. Naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens, and as such and statute that begins with the term “Naturalization” is by definition irrelevant to the question of who is and who is not a natural born citizen.
The article is sewing a lie in the hope that it sticks with the uninformed voters and in pursuit of the Democrat pipe dream of never having to face Ted Cruz on the Presidential debate stage.
The Constitution leaves it for the Congress to define “natural born” citizenship.
Congress has written into law that anyone born to a citizen of the United States outside the territory of the United States is a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz clearly meets that criteria as his mother was born and bred in the United States and met all of the specified criteria pass natural born citizenship to him.
This was already addressed when John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) was the nominee.
The Act was amended to extend the time for naturalized citizens being in the US to 5 years. Nothing in that law or in the discussion thereof rejected the definition of natural born citizen and fatherhood did not appear in the act or the Constitution. Nor does it matter because women are citizens Uncle Sharia.
What??
Cruz hedges on whether he is a natural born citizen in 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrUzQ9NgV7I
Not true, a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment (and the current interpretation has never really been tested in court) would be that anchor babies are not born “under the jurisdiction of the United States” because their parents have no legal right to be here. So not citizens, and by extension, if they’re not citizens at all, they’re obviously not going to be eligible to the Presidency.
Of course he is a citizen. He is not a natural.born citizen which is stipulated in the constitution. That requires both parents citizens and born on US soil. Even MCcAin born in a Panama hospital next to navy base had to have an opinion written and accepted by congress.
If only a one parent citizenship is required then the crown prince of Jordan would qualify as well as any illegitimate child born to a soldier on foreign soil
He can still serve in ghe senate or on the SCOTUS. Why does he insist on serving only as President
Words have meaning.
Natural BORN does not mean without medical assistance as someone tried to argue yesterday
Two US citizen parents on US territory.
There are million of people who qualify. Why choose another one who doesn’t ?
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.