Posted on 01/18/2016 5:57:15 PM PST by Enlightened1
For all the arguments that went on for years on this web site, talk radio and many other sites about Obama's eligibility.... If Cruz is eligible because his mom was a U.S. Citizen, then so is Obama because his mom was a U.S. Citizen.... Just saying!
The original definition of natural born citizen was one born to parents who were both born on U.S. soil. It was adopted to keep Alexander Hamilton from becoming president.
Jus Sanguinis. It’s older than Common Law. Goes back to Roman times. And before that, Biblical.
But yeah, that doesn’t matter. /sarc
No, that is not true. The law says that the mother needs to be over a certain age and Obama’s mother was only 18. She didn’t meet the age requirement.
Fixed it.
Respectfully, the concept of natural born citizen goes back WAY farther than the birth of the US. Or the birth of England. Even before the birth of Rome.
Why does that matter? Because our Founders were well read and based their language on an expectation that those who would interpret it would be similarly well read.
Sadly, they were mistaken. Sigh.
/not a dig on you, a dig on our failed “education” system.
Vattel, from what i’ve read is what the framers relied on in part to shape the Constitution, but if this is true then they were aware there was exceptions to the rule for Natural Born. At the time of Vattel’s rules, Women were not equal and Blacks were property. I think the Framers were forward looking and maybe envisioned America as a world power were more exceptions might have to be made, which is why Natural Born is not clearly defined.
Oh, de that whole Jus Sanguinis (of the blood) thing, it really does go back a bit: http://www.lamblion.us/2008/08/those-boring-begats.html?m=1
Re*
If Cruz had been born in Canada to a Canadian father between 1787 and 1922, he would’ve not only not been a natural born citizen, he wouldn’t have been a U.S. citizen at all, unless he later went through immigration. The idea that the Framers would consider someone who in their time wouldn’t have qualified for citizenship on any basis, a natural born citizen is preposterous. But if the Cruzers wan’t to perpetuate the whole “living, breathing Constitution” fraud, then they can continue to support this lie.
I doubt the Founders thought exceptions had to be made. If they had, they wouldn't have used the term natural born. they would have just said citizen.
Natural born HAS been clearly defined and has been for over a hundred years. Someone is natural born because they have nothing else to choose from. Born in a country of parents who are its citizens. I learned it in high school civics class. I've seen other FReepers say they did as well.
And nothing I've learned since has contradicted it.
“That what you want?”
The Election of the Republicans, Garfield and Arthur, resulted in a person who was not a U.S. citizen, Chester Arthur, becoming President. While President, Chester Arthur put a Justice on the Supreme Court who subsequently authored an erroneous decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which played a key role in making it possible for anchor babies to obtain U.S. citizenship where they arguably were not supposed to obtain U.S. citizenship. The attractiveness of being able to secure U.S. citizenship through the use of anchor babies helped to kick illegal immigration into high gear, and it helped to put Obama into the White House. How many more unintended consequences do you want to set into motion by continuing the unlawful violations of the natural born citizen clause versus the number of unintended consequences you want to risk by enforcing the natural born citizen clause?
Only if Obama was born in the USA. Obama’s mama, being just 18, could not meet the requirement of having lived 5 years in the USA after the age of 14.
Where did you get that?
His publisher — no doubt at Obama’s instruction — listed him as Kenya born on a book jacket, and there’s been plenty of speculation that he came to US college as a foreign student, but no paperwork. Just rumors.
If you know better, please source it.
Please see post 114 by MamaTexan and mine at 126, the point is not about “living, breathing Constitution” it’s about the Framers considering an exception to the rule. And it’s not preposterous because they did not write the Constitution for their time only.
You apparently do not understand the age requirement to confer citizenship.
Yes. We can hope.
Trump, arguing that he is harmed by a Cruz candidacy, might actually have standing in court, which has been a hurdle to any case challenging Obama’s qualifications.
And wouldn’t it be lovely to see Sotomayor and Kagan unseated because a poser put them on the bench?
Pipe dream, but such a good one.
“Sorry, that is not the case. The situations with Obama and Cruz have different facts. There is no inconsistency in the standard that is being applied.”
Wrong. You have your facts wrong, so your conclusion is wrong.
“A person is either a citizen by consequence of their birth or because he or she naturalized later.”
No, you are wrong. Senator Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which he used to acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth.
Barack Hussein Obama did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth and is probably not a U.S. citizen except by the fraudulent filing of a falsified birth record.
“The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate naturalization which by default gives it the power to define who doesn’t have to go through the naturalization process because the person is deemed a citizen by virtue of his or her birth. Based on the particular circumstances of their births, both Obama and Cruz didn’t have to go through a naturalization process because they had met the requirements of the time to qualify as U.S. citizens by virtue of their birth.”
No, you are wrong. Senator Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which he used to acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth.
Barack Hussein Obama did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth and is probably not a U.S. citizen except by the fraudulent filing of a falsified birth record.
“That was the issue during the hub-bub over Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate. If he had been born outside of the U. S., he would have had to have been naturalized to become a U. S. citizen because his mother would not have been able to convey citizenship to him.”
Yes, that is correct.
“Cruz’ birth situation was different because his mom was old enough to convey her U. S. citizenship on him.”
Yes, Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship because the U.S. immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 provided that the child of one U.S. parent and one alien parent could be naturalized at birth as a U.S. citizen when other requirements were met. Consequently, Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Arnold Scharzenegger is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and he is not eligible to be POTUS. Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and he too is not eligible to be POTUS.
“Absolute 100% hypocrisy”
When you deny Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen, who is also not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and thereby ineligible to be POTUS.
“No. It is absolute 100% misunderstanding by you of your opponents’ position.”
On the contrary....
And the fact hat Obama attended an Indonesian school that required students be Indonesian citizens, yet Indonesia and the US do not have a dual citizenship treaty.
“which is why Natural Born is not clearly defined.”
That is wrong. The natural born citizen clause belongs to the branch of law known as Natural Law, which is the opposite of positive law or statutory law. Terms of natural law are defined in the law of nations and in case law from the decisions by juries and jurists, because natural law and its natural born citizen clause are not positive law established by legislation.
“I doubt the Founders thought exceptions had to be made. If they had, they wouldn’t have used the term natural born. they would have just said citizen:
What you posted to me from Vattel contradicts what you just said. That’s the problem with your argument, if they valued what Vattel said then they considered exceptions.
As for your shouting that Natural Born has been clearly defined, please cite all the cases which meet the criteria unique to this case, that are settled law
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.