Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away
NBC News ^ | 01/18/2016 | Pete Williams

Posted on 01/18/2016 8:21:28 PM PST by SeekAndFind

While the nation's legal scholars differ over the exact meaning of the Constitution's requirement that a person must be a "natural born citizen" to become president, they're unanimous in saying Ted Cruz is wrong about an important point.

"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said. "People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter it is quite straightforward.

In fact, the experts say, it is neither settled nor straightforward.

It's not settled -- because the Constitution does not define "natural born," a phrase that appears in the nation's founding document only once.

And though the federal courts have chewed on it from time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court has never officially said what it means.

It's not straightforward -- because at the time the Constitution was written there were different ideas about what the phrase meant and competing legal theories about where the power to confer citizenship came from.

The meaning of the term is so unsettled that scores of constitutional experts have been writing about it in the weeks since Donald Trump made it an issue in the 2016 campaign.

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-278 next last
To: WhiskeyX

Just because you post it ad nauseum does not make it true. You have some weird theory about the meaning of Natural born but nothing in settled law that establishes that definition.

Ted Cruz is Natural Born until The Supreme Court or US Congress says different. You can rant and spittle all you want, still doesn’t change reality.

If Donald Trump was really concerned, I would encourage him to file suit, given that the courts have punted this issue for years and he may have standing.

I suspect this may not get resolved, because Cruz could lose and the issue becomes moot. Of course this was Trump’s intent all along.

I don’t know if Trump can beat Hillary, I suspect his ‘Larry, Larry. we just got to look under the Hood’ approach to solving the nation’s problems will not beat her.

I will pull the lever for him but, he gives me nothing to convince others in my family too.


101 posted on 01/18/2016 10:29:44 PM PST by Dstorm (Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

It has for over 200 years, so why not..


102 posted on 01/18/2016 10:33:39 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It was Settled in 1790 and AGAIN in 1802!

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


So READ THE LATEST FROM the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. And what's YOUR source, some COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR ? READ IT AGAIN, KNOT-HEAD ! And what's YOUR source, some COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR ?
103 posted on 01/18/2016 10:38:20 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Ok, now your just posting BS. My children had to do no such thing as you describe.


104 posted on 01/18/2016 10:41:59 PM PST by Dstorm (Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Dstorm

Yes, the last time SCOTUS tried to screw with this, we ended up with a case used today and for the last 100 years that gave us Anchor Babies.

The case was not remotely similar, but they screwed with it and the result was very bad law.

The real constitutional term that is ambiguous and related to the Cruz argument, is jurisdiction.

One school of thought is that a natural born carries with him/her the jurisdiction of the home sovereign. Thus a child born while traveling temporarily in other countries will inherit their status.

The other says jurisdiction ends at the shore. Thus natural born is about the land, not the blood.

There really is no argument about what natural born means. The argument is about blood, land, or is it both....

I think it’s both, depending on the situation and in the best interests of the sovereign, the United states.

So it’s argumentative by nature and intent.


105 posted on 01/18/2016 10:46:18 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

Yep, also meet all the other requirements, didn’t leave the US until I was 20, on by way to Okinawa for 18 months


106 posted on 01/18/2016 10:46:57 PM PST by Dstorm (Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
And what's YOUR source, some COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR ?

Bwahahahaha!

107 posted on 01/18/2016 10:54:30 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Dstorm

yes....as I believed and still do....

It’s been real difficult to argue this when the other side will not even accept that you have a valid position.

This appears to be to be hyper emotional claptrap. No evidence is admissible unless it fits the accusation.

I am so tired of it....aaaaaaahhhhhhhgh


108 posted on 01/18/2016 10:57:13 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dstorm

My father met my mother in Okinawa.

I think I was conceived there.....I wonder if they would argue that I was naturalized..


109 posted on 01/18/2016 10:58:59 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

I’m supporting Cruz, but the main reason for me is my children, I had a poster post a passage from Vattel

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

If the framers accepted this, I wonder what their thinking was when they wrote the passage about Natural Born


110 posted on 01/18/2016 11:02:18 PM PST by Dstorm (Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

“You have no legal statutes to prove your point.”

Ted Cruz made public statements claiming his mother’s U.S. citizenship was the basis for his acquisition of U.S. citizenship. The U.S. statute in effect in 1970 at the time of the birth of Ted Cruz that authorized such a grant of U.S. citizenship was 66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. That statute reads as follows:

66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952

TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization

NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . .
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

The equivalent present day statute is:

U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization. § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ... (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual currently used to administer the past and current U.S. Immigration and Naturalization statutes says:

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.

At no time in Anglo-American history has a child born abroad been lawfully recognized as a natural born citizen, with the exception of those persons shielded by diplomatic immunity from the obligation of allegiance to a foreign sovereign. All children born abroad are born as aliens, and some of these alien born children with citizen fathers and later with citizen mothers have been granted the right to become naturalized at birth as naturalized citizens.

“BTW, I have no intent to carry this further. I have said all I will say, and this matter will not be taken up by SCOTUS.”

Of course not, you know you have no valid evidence to provide a rational rebuttal of the actual statutes, Constitution, and case law; so, you just gainsay with baseless denials.


111 posted on 01/18/2016 11:05:27 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said.

That's bullsqueeze, and you know it, Ted.

Or maybe you're not the constitutional scholar and champion so many of us took you for, when we busted our tails to get you elected to the Senate.

Ted is so losing my patience and trust over this. Armchair students of American history and the Constitution appear to have a keener grasp of what the Framers' original intent was, than Ted Cruz.

Anyone over 40 likely was taught in school that American presidents are required to be born on US soil to two US citizen parents. That's how the general public has understood the NBC clause for generations - right back to the founding of the nation.

Seems weird that over 200 years of precedent and understanding about something so basic to the fundamental structure of our government, has now become such a mysterious question. Obama got away with violating the spirit (if not the very letter) of the Constitution, so why not Cruz too?

It's hypocritical to say that Zero is ineligible if he was born out of country to one US citizen parent, but Cruz is not.

112 posted on 01/18/2016 11:05:40 PM PST by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

Probably not, in their quest to slander Cruz they don’t care who gets hurt. The military screw them, a bunch of chumps. Some times I get the feeling I’m arguing with posters from Politico or one of the other liberal sites.


113 posted on 01/18/2016 11:10:28 PM PST by Dstorm (Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
I fully expect that within a week, the Cruzers are going to start arguing that since Obama got a bye, so should Cruz, and then we can call it even.

They were arguing that before he ever announced his bid.

114 posted on 01/18/2016 11:14:00 PM PST by itsahoot (Trump is a fumble mouthed blowhard that can't speak in complete sentences. Wonder why is he winning?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dstorm
Hmmmm......I don't know specifically, but I think there was some disagreement, and as a result, there was no recorded discussion. They were silent. I think everyone agreed about the need for a level of security.

Being the entire purpose of it, they changed the original draft and inserted the term. The problem being that many, like you had children born abroad, including John jay, who is purportedly responsible for the change. It's noteworthy that during the course of arguing this for several days now, several of my opponents used Vattel to support the opposite point. It's just dicta, and this guy was musing about things on both sides of the argument, then comparing it to his home, Switzerland. So you can find things on either side to support your point....It drove me nuts!

In any case, the only position that makes any sense and it's confirmed in many places in statutes is that both blood and place are used to determine both citizenship, naturalization requirements and natural born status.

To be sure, there will be someone who will post dicta that they say proves the opposite and that natural born can only come from the land or place.

It's just as sure as the sun rise.

115 posted on 01/18/2016 11:17:23 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A true conservative would want to preserve and uphold the Constitution and err on the side of caution by not voting for someone who is not eligible to be President.

Voting for Cruz and having him as President would weaken the Constitution.


116 posted on 01/18/2016 11:20:33 PM PST by r_barton ("Trump" word origin "Triumph" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Once again you post something not relevant to you argument, what you posted just establishes that Cruz is a US Citizen at birth. It does not address Natural Born. You then post your opinion without citing any settled case law.

You post “At no time in Anglo-American history has a child born abroad been lawfully recognized as a natural born citizen” Please post the case where the child was denied this right, that is what your trying to imply with this passage


117 posted on 01/18/2016 11:22:06 PM PST by Dstorm (Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

You can put that stuff up all day long, and tomorrow, next week, next year, and in 2050.

Nothing in my argument will change.

And this will still be argued.


118 posted on 01/18/2016 11:29:11 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: r_barton
A true conservative would want to preserve and uphold the Constitution

A true conservative would also demand a true conservative president.

Trump is not that man and in fact far from it.

As to the constitution, it's quite safe with Cruz, In fact could not be in better hands then his.

119 posted on 01/18/2016 11:32:28 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: r_barton
A true conservative would want to preserve and uphold the Constitution

A true conservative would also demand a true conservative president.

Trump is not that man and in fact far from it.

As to the constitution, it's quite safe with Cruz, In fact could not be in better hands then his.

120 posted on 01/18/2016 11:32:28 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-278 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson