Posted on 01/24/2016 1:04:47 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I usually enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns thanks to her acerbic wit and gutsy grit. But, being human, she has flaws, among which is a penchant to suspend rationality when advocating for her flavor of the year in Republican presidential candidates. In past years, it was Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. Now, thanks mainly to his tough stance on immigration, it's Donald Trump.
This infatuation has caused her to write some ridiculous things about the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the presidency. Her use of the term "naturalization" is, frankly, unworthy of her status as a law school graduate. A recently published article from the Harvard Law Review holds that: "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase 'natural born citizen' has a specific meaning - namely, someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time." Cruz meets this requirement.
There are only two paths to citizenship: automatically at birth, or after one's birth through some legal process such as immigration and naturalization. The plain meaning of "natural born citizen" is understood to be a person who was a citizen "naturally" by reason of birth, as differentiated from obtaining citizenship later in life. In 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Newton Schwartz, an 85-year-old lawyer, has filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Texas challenging Cruz' eligibility. Schwartz told Bloomberg News that, while he's not linked to any particular presidential campaign, he will probably support Democrat/Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Nice company you're in, Annie!
Legally, this man has no "standing" to file this action. Only another presidential candidate could do so. If Trump actually thinks Cruz is ineligible, let him file suit and request expedited consideration which, along with any subsequent appeals, would surely be decided on an emergency basis. Otherwise, let's move on to real issues!
Until you cite a legal authority for that proposition, it is merely you and others flapping their gums. Magic thinking. Blinders. Childish "nyah nyah nyah nyah" argument may make you feel better, but it is a loser in court.
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
In no possible way would our Founders have considered Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.
If Cruz in the Republican candidate liberal judges will gleefully cooperate with the snickering Marxo-Demo-Proggies. Bet on it!
“So the civil rights act of 1866 didn’t change the 3/5 clause of the constitution ?”
No, it did not; the 13th amendment did in 1865.
The Constitution gave Congress the power to set citizenship standards. The Constitution did not grant Congress the power to change what is written into the Constitution.
No. It said the law was going to pretend that person was an NBC, even though they weren't even a citizen under the constitution.
The phrase "shall be considered as" creates a legal fiction. A pretend.
Just like you pretend to know the law.
“The Constitution did provide an EXACT definition indeed in 1790 the first congress stated that a person born overseas to American parents was a natural born citizen.”
And it specified that citizenship descended from the father.
We don't have to go there to decide the Cruz case. Cruz is naturalized, which is "not natural born."
There are LOTS of things today that the founders never considered...the list is almost endless
BTW, they are all dead...and not available for comment...
But, the constitution lives on and all the laws passed and legislated by Congress...
One of them is Title 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth...
Is it law or not ?
It does no such thing. In fact, it does the opposite of what you claim it does. The words "shall be considered as" create a legal fiction. The 1790 act says that Courts are to pretend that a child born abroad is a NBC.
:>)
The 13th amendment simply abolished slavery...
The civil rights act of 1866 granted former slaves citizen rights...since the constitution did not...
Is that adding, modifying, altering the constitution ?
So is 8 U.S. Code AS: 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth is now constitutional or not?
I'm sure you have an opinion...
So according to you own standard Title 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth is law and constitutional...
Cruz is eligible to run for POTUS...
Thanks for clearing that up...
“Nice try...
The 13th amendment simply abolished slavery...”
And, it negated the three-fifths clause by abolishing slavery.
from Wikipedia:
“Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), the three-fifths clause was nullified, as all people were now free.”
You are not really going to get very far with anyone who has a room temperature IQ claiming that acts of Congress can alter the Constitution. You just won’t.
I specified “citizenship”.
The Constitution refers to citizenship, and it refers to natural born citizenship. Those two terms are not identical, obviously.
It is impossible to force natural born citizenship status onto a child born in another country of a Cuban father. When the natural born requirement was written into the Constitution, citizenship descended only through the father, as stipulated in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that defines what natural born citizenship is.
In creating the legal fiction, it identifies what a natural born citizen is.
No it doesn't. It works the opposite way.
There is a regulation in the Social Security code. It says something to the effect that "A 22 year old shall be considered to be a child." That is not saying that all 22 year olds are children, but to use your construction, it does.
Sort of like, "If you don't reply, I'll consider that you agree with me." Your agreement is independent of what I pretend it is.
“There is a regulation in the Social Security code. It says something to the effect that “A 22 year old shall be considered to be a child.” That is not saying that all 22 year olds are children, but to use your construction, it does.
No. The regulation refers to an accepted concept of a child and applies it. We all know what a child is. Similarly, the Naturalization Act of 1790 refers to the concept of natural born citizenship that pre-existed the Act and applies it.
What I am maintaining is not original with me. I, along with millions, was taught what natural born citizenship was in American history class, long before this ever came up. It was taught for hundreds of years.
If that understanding had been adhered to, we would never have had Obama as president.
But....You don't need to convince me. It is the liberal judges who need to be convinced.
Yeah...I have heard that argument...in what way does it supersedes current law...?
What about the current law I cited...?
Are you going to ignore current law or stick with a law written in 1790...?
I’m leaning you are myopic....
In 1790, they had the same understanding of NBC that you do. The act is phrased in a way that creates a pretend, a fiction - all naturalization law has the same essential form. Person is an alien, we'll naturalize him and pretend he is a citizen. The pretend is as good as the fact, a naturalized citizen is every bit as much a citizen, as a citizen who was not naturalized.
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.