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!
Of course that's absurd. Of course the law is constitutional. It is an act of naturalization pursuant to Congress power.
The constitution could have just as well given the president the power to naturalize, but it didn't.
Honey, would you like bacon this morning?
Well, if it were I, bacon would be elevated to a position of dinner, being as bacon has properties worthy of other forms of dining and so forth, but it is of my opinion, bacon could quite possibly be one of the finest...
{Twenty minutes later}
Yes, I'll have two pieces honey.
Go to :http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/PDF/NationalityChart1.pdf
Goto:On or After Dec. 24, 1952 and Prior To Nov. 11, 1986
Read the second entry: One USC parent and one alien parent
Read: USC parent physically present in U.S. or OLP 10
years, at least 5 after age 14.
We make ourselves look like trump, coulter and others by repeating this ignorance of the law that is available through a simple search that brings up the government website that deals with this specifically.
Let's all get a life and start dealing with real issues!
not lase, try law
Walt, that’s a good chart. But it doesn’t prove what you think it does. Just to add a complicating factor, did you know that a “national” and a “citizen” are not the same thing?
“There are thousands of laws/statutes that modify, alter, override expand the meaning of the constitution.”
Altar? Override? No way.
My Constitution still says ‘natural born’ is required to be eligible to hold the office of president. Let me know when you find a revised and extended reference to that requirement.
Natural born is a birthright.. Amazing how so few give a hoot about that.
The statute defines natural born as opposed to naturalized.
Relax your guy is gonna win the nomination he knew he could win a debate 1 on 1 with Cruz he went for the smear and it’s gonna work.
“The statute defines natural born as opposed to naturalized.”
A statute cannot redefine what is in the Constitution. It is like saying a statute can alter the meaning of the term “infringed”.
It takes an amendment to alter the Constitution. Otherwise, you have a “living document.”
Ted Cruz’s ineligibility has nothing to do with Donald Trump. He’s an affront to constitutional conservatism as are his supporters.
Aren’t we fortunate to have you define “constitutional conservatism” for us.
You are misstating what I said. I’d have an issue with a Saudi prince being a citizen. If his mother was a citizen at his birth then he is by law.
What another country does regarding their citizenship has no bearing.
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.
Naturalized means he went before a court and was made a citizen. That did not happen.
So the civil rights act of 1866 didn’t change the 3/5 clause of the constitution ?
Tell me you are not that myopic to walk down that path?
So is 8 U.S. Code AS: 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth is now constitutional or not?
It’s an easy question...
If your parent is a citizen then by birthright you are too.
Pretty easy.
The law allows for birth outside of the US in a few cases.
Does the Constitution define natural born?
I quoted you directly. @ 67
I have an issue with the prince as well. But the law says he's a citizen. As a dual citizen he could not run for president.
You have not responded to my question. My question was, "How do you distinguish the Saudi prince dual citizen, from dual-citizen-at-birth (actually three, Cuba had a claim the same as the US) Cruz?"
We both agree that both the Saudi Prince and Cruz are citizens. That is not the point of the argument. Don't insert the distraction of another country's laws. Everything we are dealing with here is a function of US law acting alone.
Man up and defend your ground with an intellectually honest argument.
If his mother was a NBC than yes.
“Does the Constitution define natural born?”
The Constitution does not contain a glossary of ANY of its concepts. If that is the test, then the Constitution is worthless.
The Naturalization Act of 1790, written by the same ones who wrote the Constitution, does define natural born — a person born of citizen parents. It specified that citizenship descends from the father for natural born citizenship. Mere citizenship descended from the father only until the 1930s.
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.