Posted on 02/06/2016 4:30:57 PM PST by TBBT
You can know Cruz by his enemies. And they are out in force today. Dark forces, even. The left has a narrative and they're pushing it ahead of tonight's debate.
Take this story, for example, from Mediaite:
Mediaite-2
From the article:
Things got a bit dicey for Ted Cruz yesterday, as he found himself in a heated exchange about his Canadian origins with a potential voter at an event in New Hampshire.
But of course, that's not at all what happened. First of all, he wasn't "cornered." That's ridiculous. He was taking questions from the audience. This was someone on in the audience. "Cornered" is ridiculous.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Duh. Obama is a democrat.laws don’t pertain to him
So, you’re good to go with barky?
“Cruz is a citizen because his mother is but he is not a NBC because his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth”
Because Cruz’s citizenship was conveyed naturally from his mother, he is naturally a born citizen. The founders understood the natural right of children to receive the citizenship of their parents. That is what the natural part of the phrase means.
No.Supreme Court precedent: The courts have applied the partus sequitur patrem principle (citizenship by descent from one’s father) to determine who is, or who is not, a federal (U.S.) citizen at birth; but the meaning of natural born citizen appears to be a separate issue [21]. To this day, the Supreme Court, in its majority opinions, has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to parents who are both U.S. citizens.
In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel’s concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection), the Vattelian Law of Nations view of citizenship, which includes:
“natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens” (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), children born in the United States were divided into two groups: (a) U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents, and (b) all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first group [22].
In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States; her father was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [23].
In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States; his father was a native-born U.S. citizen; and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [24].
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens
The most wrong of the three is the second: “birthplace-only theory” because so many facts of history contradict it.
It is essentially true that the reason for including this provision in the Constitution was certainly to protect the nation from foreign influence. That is, however, not the same as original intent. Original intent has to do with the explicit meaning of the words as the founders intended. That is, their purpose was to protect the nation from foreign influence, but the means by which they did was was a specific requirement.
While the Constitution does not give us the definition of natural born citizen or determine with any certainty which of your three theories would apply, other facts of history make it clear.
All this means is that a child born on US soil to parents who are both citizens is unquestionably a natural born citizen. No one has ever disputed that.
Your point adds nothing to whether the founders intended “natural” to be jus soli or jus sanguinis or require both. The answer to that is clearly seen in the 1790 act.
Your point is pertinent in that the current Supreme Court, if it was willing to rule on the matter, would not be bound by any precedent.
My opinion is that the Supreme Court would rule that Cruz met the Constitutional criteria for president. And further, regardless of how they ruled, virtually no one would change his or her opinion on the matter. They would simply agree with the court or disagree.
The answer to that is clearly seen in the 1790 act.
The 1790 act was written because of the requirement of the natural born citizen change in the Constitution. No one could @eet that requirement.
Reason 1: Original purpose of the “natural born citizen” provision in the Constitution
On September 4, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention changed the presidential eligibility requirement in the Constitution from “citizen” to “natural born citizen”. According to multiple historical sources (see Question 7: Original purpose), the purpose of the change was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency. Apparently, someone who is a U.S. citizen can also be a foreigner in some sense, but a natural born citizen is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.
During the Constitutional Era (1786-1800), the meaning of “foreigner,” in American jurisprudence, was not limited to persons born overseas. Anyone who was a citizen or subject of a foreign country, or who owed allegiance to a foreign power, was also a “foreigner”, regardess of his or her birthplace (see Question 8: Meaning of “foreigner”).
Since natural born citizenship pertains only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth [07], the only “foreigners” that the “natural born citizen” provision could have possibly excluded were persons who were foreigners when they were born. Consequently, the “natural born citizen” provision could not have achieved its purpose (the exclusion of foreigners from the presidency) to any extent or degree, unless “natural born citizen” is understood to mean a U.S. citizen who, when born, is not a “foreigner”, i.e., is neither foreign-born nor a foreign citizen or subject.
“The 1790 act was written because of the requirement of the natural born citizen change in the Constitution. No one could @eet that requirement.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. People did meet the requirements for presidency without “natural born citizen” being specified in the act. Anyone who was a citizen when the Constitution was ratified could also be president. But maybe you mean something else.
“Apparently, someone who is a U.S. citizen can also be a foreigner in some sense, but a natural born citizen is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.”
I think I pointed out to you that dual citizenship has historically been an issue for thousands of years. Is it divided loyalty? I do not think the founders precluded dual citizenship, but it is problematic for a legislator or president to have dual citizenship.
“the ‘natural born citizen’ provision could not have achieved its purpose (the exclusion of foreigners from the presidency) to any extent or degree, unless ‘natural born citizen’ is understood to mean a U.S. citizen who, when born, is not a ‘foreigner’”
Well I generally agree with the argument but not the conclusion. Naturalization is conveying citizenship on a foreigner. Congress has the power to determine when this applies or does not. The war of 1812 was partly due to the British forcing US citizens into the Navy of Great Britain, claiming they were “natural born subjects”.
Again, the naturalization act of 1790 demonstrates that the founders consider the parameters of who is a “natural born citizen” to be within the purview of Congress. They also considered parentage rather than place of birth to be the preeminent basis for conveying natural born citizenship (jus sanguinis rather than jus soli).
Gee I wonder why the surpremes that ruled a natural born citizen is a child born on US soil of two US citizen parents didn’t have your insight?
You just ignore what ever ibpost to focus on an act that pertains to no one alive today.
“Gee I wonder why the surpremes that ruled a natural born citizen is a child born on US soil of two US citizen parents didn’t have your insight? You just ignore what ever ibpost to focus on an act that pertains to no one alive today.”
Get real. The Supreme Court also found the double-secret cryptic right to kill unborn babies IN the Constitution. Those are the ones you put your trust in more than the founders themselves. The act in 1790 is highly instructive as to the intent of the founders. The fact that it “pertains to no one alive today” is significant if you want to argue the Constitution is a “living document”. Otherwise, what the founders actually meant IS very important.
Ok I give. Now convince the left wing media too. They will not tire of your endless nonsense
Sorry, I missed this post! :(
Get a little ‘hyper’ sometime and it “ain’t good” for a man my age!!! LOL!!
BTW: Thanks for your posts and replies with actual, real genuine answers and not reverting to accusation, innuendo, non productive personal attacks!!
To me you show how to be, a true Southern Lady and Texan!
Thanks!
Why, thank you, Pilgrim!
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.