Holding my tongue until
after Iowa-New Hampshire
More crap from ignorant people who are intent on spreading their ignorance to others.
Honest to god, I don’t get these people who claim it is all so important that the members put a phrase in when some of the same members took it out.
I have a person on another thread that is arguing just that. Who cares if James Madison took it out and George Washington signed it into law ...as well as other Founding Fathers.
We don’t know why they took it out. BUT THEY DID.
I venture to say it is MANY of people who put it in turned around AND TOOK IT OUT.
To me, that means they didn’t want it there for whatever reason.
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.
Wrong. Naturalized citizens are those who have been made citizens by virtue of statute, not nature.
Senator Cruz was made a citizen solely by virtue of the generous provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act.
That sure is a mass of outside reference. What does the constitution say on its face? It defines citizen. If Cruz gets over that hurdle, continue to see if his citizenship is natural born or naturalized.
Back in 1790, the legal system was much more patriarchal than it is now--married women were more or less like children in the eyes of the law. So the father's status carried more weight than the mother's. The law changing that in the 1920s came after the amendment that gave women the right to vote, when social and legal attitudes had changed.
Sen. McCain was on one of the morning shows yesterday and falsely asserted that he himself had been born in the Panama Canal Zone, rather than in Panama proper.
Back in 1790, the legal system was much more patriarchal than it is now--married women were more or less like children in the eyes of the law. So the father's status carried more weight than the mother's. The law changing that in the 1920s came after the amendment that gave women the right to vote, when social and legal attitudes had changed.
Sen. McCain was on one of the morning shows yesterday and falsely asserted that he himself had been born in the Panama Canal Zone, rather than in Panama proper.
ping
The child of a foreign citizen is presented as a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
Any person who can past that premise and seek to support it with detailed explanations is seriously lacking a reasoning component. Perhaps it is a genetic thing or an acquired characteristic, but here it is simply recognized as nonsense.
The conclusion that a foreigner is a NBC is clearly an agenda driven one.