Posted on 04/12/2016 4:48:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas meets the criteria to be considered a “natural born citizen” and can run in New Jersey’s Republican presidential primary on June 7, an administrative law judge ruled Tuesday.
Judge Jeff Masin’s decision will now go to Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who also serves as New Jersey’s secretary of state, for consideration. She can choose to accept it in full or in part, or reject it.
Masin heard arguments Monday on two challenges to Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. In both cases, the challengers argued that, because Cruz was born in Canada, he is not a natural born citizen, one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Cruz, 45, was born in Calgary, Alberta. His mother, a U.S. citizen, was born in Delaware. His father was born in Cuba. Cruz has said that a child of a U.S. citizen is automatically granted citizenship at birth and is therefore “natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at northjersey.com ...
Well perhaps you can summarize it then? Normally when I am interested in the time, I don't want instructions on how to build a clock.
The early Presidents not born in America agree.
******************
You are correct that the first nine were born in British Colonies. But they were born on
the soil that was to become the United States of America not some in some foreign country.
It was the 10th President that became the first to be born on soil within the United States of America.
A little history for the thread.
Regardless of religious beliefs we do know Edward wasn’t born on US soil. Even the
first nine Presidents were born on soil that became the USA after the formation of this
country. That is more than the Canadain born candidate can say.
Though the Declaration of Independence was dated July 4, 1776, it took 13 years to win and
confirm this independence on the battle fields. A recognizable new nation called the
United States of America, with its own constitution and government was established only in
1783 through the treatry of Paris signed by King George the Third and the representatives of
the United States of America.
Prior to this date, anyone born in North America, presently known as USA, was actually born
in a British Colony, controlled by England and was a citizen of England and pledged
allegiance to the British Crown. Thus nine of the forty-three Presidents, who have served
as president, were foreign born. These nine foreign born US presidents are listed hereunder:
1. George Washington (1789-1797) was born in 1732, in the British Colony of Virginia, and
was a British subject, until the formation of the Government of the United States of America
in 1789, when he became its first president.
2. John Adams (1797-1801) was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735.
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) was born in 1743 in the colony of Virginia.
4. James Madison (1809-1817) was born in 1751 in the colony of Virginia.
5. James Monroe (1817-1825) was born in the colony of Virginia, in 1758.
6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) was born in 1767 in the colony of Massachusetts.
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born in 1767 in the colony of the Carolinas.
8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) was born in 1782 in the colony of New York.
9. William Henry Harrison (1841) was born in 1773 in the colony of of Virginia. He died in
office from pneumonia.
The tenth US president, John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president. He was
born in March 29, 1790, in the State of Virginia in USA.
http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html
Natural law constants are defined by nature. It is a mortal arrogance to presume they can be re-defined by man.
“The Constitution does not say in words who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” SCOTUS- Minor v Happersett, 1874
Glad you quoted that. I regard it as a specific admission that 14th amendment (which was what he meant when he said "the constitution" because it was under 14th amendment grounds that the case was brought) does not say who shall be a natural born citizen.
I agree. It does not, and cannot. Natural law constants cannot be modified. We can chose to use them, or not use them, but we cannot change their meaning.
United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject" (January 29, 1795).
Correct . It was May 14th 2014.. Another world famous “smartest people in the World” that didn’t know he was Canadian. Please Lord, Hep us!!!
The long awaited “judicial ruling”.
I guess that settles it. :-)
Ted Cruz is not eligible. His dad is not a hero. His mom was a Canadian citizen when Ted was born. more or less ~ details are all on the post.
When the constitution was written, slaves and the children of slaves were not considered natural born citizens. Did God change his mind?
Whoa...”Lyin’ Ted” indeed. No wonder his records are sealed! Thanks for the info.
a. Ignorant of the law
b. A GOP-e activist
c. An agent of the NWO
d. Bought
e. Intimidated
f. Senile...or otherwise confused
:-)
Read the following time line and it may help you clear up your England part of the story. Eleanor and Alan Wilson of Fort Worth Tx went to England, got divorced and Eleanor had a child a couple years later that died about 5 months old. The child is buried in England and her first husband still lives there but isn’t the child’s father so he says. She came back to the US and wound up in New Orleans, met Rafael and they headed north to Canada. At some point they got married and Edward was born up there. Rafael came back to the Houston area, got religion and went back to Canada and brought the family back to the Houston area. Later on Rafael and Eleanor separated and finally divorced in the late 1990s.
Quick synopsis of which I maybe in error on parts. Try this for parts of what I’ve described.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article54991080.html
My Friends at FR. Please get this. NBC. You may hate this. As my wife does. When our Country Founded the Constitution. Our Laws did not accept ownership by a Woman. So, this born stuff would have meant (well, stuff)
Ok, some ownership did exist. Until “properly” Married. I’ll log out now! Actually, no, I’ll take the Flame..
The interesting aspect of this argument is that no one in the First Congress (including many founders) or in the subsequent Congress that revised the language challenged the power of the Congress to write such definitions and clarifications. No one has challenged Congress since. We might be safe in assuming that the Congress does have that power.
Because he was the first to be born after Independence, the 8th President, Martin Van Buren is considered to be the first Natural Born Citizen president.
From the National Constitution Center :
December 5 marked a milestone in American history, but not one that many citizens living outside of Kinderhook, NY, will recall or think to celebrate. It was the birthday of Martin Van Buren, Kinderhook’s favorite son.
Van Buren was the eighth president of the United States and the first to be born after independence. That accident of birth makes Van Buren the first naturally born American citizen to serve as president. Before him, all of our presidents, going back to Washington, were British subjects when they first saw the light of day. With Van Buren, we crossed a demographic divide.
That accident of birth makes Van Buren the first naturally born American citizen to serve as president.
Unlike someone born in 2010, Van Buren could have served as president whether he was born on American shores or in a foreign land. The clause in the Constitution that requires the president to be a “natural born” citizen exempted foreign-born citizens living in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1788. Van Buren, born in 1782, would have squeaked through that loophole even if he had been born in, say, Indonesia.
Since we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts, this Opinion Lab does not engage with the factual question of where President Obama was born. Instead, it asks you to formulate a position on the question: Should we amend the Constitution to let foreign-born U.S. citizens become president?
The issue in a nutshell: When the Framers wrote the Constitution in 1787, they feared the influence foreign powers and foreign wealth might have on the new nation. In Europe, royal families in one country often tried to put one of their own on another nation’s throne. To prevent some powerful European nobleman from coming to America, buying up political favors and seizing the presidency, the Framers adopted a clause making foreign-born U.S. citizens (except those present at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, whose loyalty had been proven) ineligible to become president.
Advocates of change say the requirement is out-of-date and un-American. Millions of immigrants have made this the most diverse nation on Earth and contributed to its strength. As a matter of equal rights, proponents say, they should have an equal chance to dream about becoming president. Opponents say the Framers’ concerns about the possibility of divided allegiances are still valid and that the Constitution should not be changed.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2010/12/martin-van-buren-immigration-and-the-presidency/
I didn’t have any trouble reading it. Quite interesting actually.
It would be rather odd if Anchor babies, born on U.S. soil of two alien parents are Natural Born Citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, but a child born of a U.S. citizen on foreign would not be. There are good reasons that these rulings have been consistent thus far.
On the other hand, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”
The actions and understandings of the First Congress are persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Constitutional Convention served in the First Congress and none of them objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.
IIRC a lot of people here were DEMANDING that the issue be brought before the courts. So it was. And now everyone is whining about the decision. Whining. Whining. Whining.
Those who demanded the issue be brought before the courts and are now complaining about it are hypocrites. They wanted the issue, not the decision. They are only willing to play by the rules when they win. When they lose, they complain about the officiating.
It's also a definition in natural law. Next thing you know, they'll be passing a law to make the Sun rise in the West.
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.