Posted on 02/19/2016 6:36:53 AM PST by Enlightened1
Here is what the Constitution says about who can be president:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The problem is the Constitution doesn't define "natural born Citizen." Neither does any current law. And no one has ever brought a court case to decisively settle the question as a matter of US law.
There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time). Or he can immigrate here and then successfully apply for citizenship, a process called naturalization.
Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens. Everyone agrees that the third category of people are not natural-born citizens (regardless of how unfair it might be that immigrants can't be president). But Ted Cruz is in the middle category, and this is where the meaning of "natural born" starts to get fuzzy.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
He does if the court accepts that he was actually born in Hawaii, which became a state in 1959.
Of course, I'd love to see the evidence for his Hawaiian birth disputed in court, but that ain't a gonna happen.
So he did release his BC and certificate of American citizen born abroad?
I missed that.
Source please?
Yep.
Educate yourself.
How, exactly, should he do this?
Yeah, why is this “bad news”?
What I’ve learned from following this since the Obama birth certificate dust up is as follows:
1. It is binary. That is, if you are a U.S. citizen, you are one of these two: Natural born or naturalized.
2. If you are legally a U.S. citizen, but did not have to go through a naturalization process, you are not a naturalized citizen. That makes you the other type.
And any decision by a court that does not make it this binary is going to seriously mess up our political process for a long time.
That's not true. A person born abroad and made a citizen by the 1952 act, is required to spend 5 years of continuous US presence between the ages of 14 and 28, in order to retain the citizenship. 301(b) contains the citizenship retention language that applies to Cruz.
Oh, "continuous" doesn't mean what the plain use of language indicates. Tim abroad of less than 6 months do not affect continuity.
HA!
Why do folks think Ann Coulter is right on this when there are ZERO Constitutional scholars this side of Obama who agree with her?
“And the Supreme Court is never going to define it. They will not touch this question and Cruz will be on the ballot.”
Case goes to Scalia-less SCOTUS.
Decision split 4-4.
It stands. Cruz goes home.
Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens.
Not true.
A Natural Born Citizen must be born of a father that was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. Location of the birth is irrelevant.
Federal Law can not change this as the Constitution did not give congress the power to define Natural Born Citizen. It would take an amendment to the constitution to redefine Natural Born Citizen.
The oft-repeated “the Constitution doesn’t define natural born” is a ridiculous argument. The Constitution doesn’t define ANY word or phrase because every word and phrase had a commonly accepted meaning.
The problem here is that te national socialist democrats WILL bring this to court. The GOP elite would NOT bring up Obamas to court.
What does this tell us?
She covers the history okay, but misses important court precedents and other references (no mention of Vattel, for example, not that Vattel conrols, just that his writings are part of the historical review)
The current effort by BO and others to make the term Natural Born Citizen meaningless is a purposeful assault on our Constitution and National Sovereignty.
"212. Of the citizens and natives."
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Speaking engagements are bringing in big bucks, too. All his money went to media people and overpaid friends.
It’s not going to happen, but some will entertain fantasies.
“To continue to keep votes from going to Cruz.
AKA: Payback for Iowa”
So he’s just petty and butthurt? Here I was thinking he was above all of that. Silly me.
If you are referring to the woman speaking in post 12 she is a professor explaining the original intent (as in conservative justice Scalia philosophy) of the term natural born citizen. She goes into all arguments including the liberal living document arguments and explains why they have no bearing.
You really shouldn’t post if you haven’t listened to the link. It makes others wonder about your purpose on this site. Like how much you’re being paid ?....etc
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.