Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Nobody said he is not a citizen. He is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which was a restrictive phrase taken from E. Vattel’s The Law of Nations, published in 1758. The Framers did not want someone with divided loyalties to become president and command-in-chief of the army, so chose Vattel’s wording which was well known to them. It required the child to be born of TWO CITIZENS of the United States. Blackstone had nothing to do with it.
I’ll be, a really good article except that it believes Obama is natural born.
Very good post.
No. The Constitution gives Congress the power to establish uniform rules of "naturalisation." This *necessarily* excludes "natural born" from the equation because per comm and natural law, someone who is "natural born" is "naturally" a citizen, there is no need for statutory law to define the status and quality of their citizenship.
Long story short - if your citizenship is derived from meeting a qualification specified in a law passed by Congress (as Cruz's is), then you are by definition not a natural born citizen.
It wasn’t Trump that brought it up, he just expanded the possibility Cruz might be challenged in a lawsuit over his natural born citizenship.
By WaPo’s logic, and some of the fringe on FR, then Obama is barred from being President and Hillary as well because blacks and women weren’t eligible voters, let alone to hold office in 1790.
Let it go.
I’d be embarrassed to travel through these forums like that.
_________________________________________
You should be embarrassed at your total ignorance of what a NBC is.
Have you been in a coma these last 8 years? There have been over 50 court cases, state A/G challenges, appellate decisions and more that refined and defined what Natural Born Citizen means. (No) Thanks to Obama - this is Settled Law.
You don’t get that? I know you do. Either that, or you’re an anti-Ted troll.
The fact that your analysis starts with an “Act” means you know nothing about the issue. Acts of Congress are irrelevant to the question of who is or is not a natural born citizen. They deal strictly with who is or is not a naturalized citizen. The Constitutional explicitly granted them the right to determine naturalization rules, but not Presidential eligibility rules.
Sure would be funny if someone were to pop up with an Obama Canadian BC to a mother that wasn’t old enough to pass citizenship to the jug eared clown.
Long story short - if your citizenship is derived from meeting a qualification specified in a law passed by Congress (as Cruz’s is), then you are by definition not a natural born citizen.
That much you can bet on.
No, it was never "changed," nor did Congress have the power to change what a natural born citizen was. The Constitution only gives them power over naturalization.
At the time the constitution was written, women didn't have the right too vote
Which is why we have the 19th amendment, because you can't just violate the constitution when you feel like it. To give them the vote, you had to do an amendment. To make Ted Cruz President, you'll have to do a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution leaves it for the Congress to define ‘natural born’ citizenship . . .
Where in the Constitution is it written that the Congress has the right to define “natural born citizenship”?
Funny if it were 2008. Today? I’d bust into tears.
Since the term “natural born citizen” is not clearly defined, it is up to Congress to define it. Simple as that. That is one of the things covered under hte “necessary and proper” clause.
I guess if a 50 year old person who was born in Soviet Russia (who had never stepped foot in the USA but whose mother was a US citizen) decided they wanted to run for President of the United States all they are required to do is move to the USA for 14 years and then they would be eligible to run at age 64.. boy that would stir things up
Article III courts don’t make declaratory judgements
I believe they do, specifically in citizenship cases for insurance companies, school districts, etc.
George Washington, Chair of the Constitutional Committee, received a letter from John Jay (who became the First Chief justice of the Supreme Court) suggesting the wording “Natural Born Citizen” should be used. He referred to E. Vattel’s published and well known “Law of Nations” which restricted to Natural Born Citizen those citizens be born of TWO Parents Citizens and born on the soil. The wording was adopted in the final draft of the constitution. The Framers did not want a president to be a person of divided loyalties which might be the case with someone having one parent citizen and one parent alien.
I understand but you can believe that would not be taken seriously if Cruz were a Democrat for one instant.
It would be cast as falling comfortably within what “natural born” really means and as conspiracy-theory and empty-headed hate mongering and the politics of personal attacks.
And at this point, I see no reason not to interpret his birth as “natural born.”
Look at how these definitions are being used on illegal immigration.
So someone born here illegally of illegal immigrant parents would qualify to be President, but Cruz somehow wouldn’t?
You’re shockingly ignorant here. Our entire legal system from top to bottom is at its foundation a common law legal system. Contracts. Torts. Court procedures. Real Property. Even our constitutional law starts with a very small set of works and then builds on that using the common law system where judges create various doctrines that then form precedents and govern other cases.
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.