Skip to comments.Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
click here to read article
The evidence of which is only your word for it.
Which was, rather, my point.
Would you rather be stuck on wrong, stubbornly denying reality? Or would you rather know the truth, and be on the side of the truth?
I'd rather have someone give me the courtesy of presenting their evidence like an adult, not dancing about attempting to play some type of childish, demented 'gotcha' game.
And wipe off that projectionist brush of yours. You're confusing fear with utter disgust.
ping, in case you missed this huge weekend thread where all the usual NBC suspects have turned up plus some new ones...
I honestly didn’t expect I would this many replies to the thread. I’m impressed.
You can make some positive comments concerning Romney but he is without question a liberal.
I never claimed that. You need to take a class in reading comprehension.
Having read your other posts on the subject not posted to me but to others, I see that you do not necessarily think that a child born to US citizens abroad are not U.S. citizens at birth and NBCs (like Axs children that you claim not to be a birther that the question remains unsettled by court decision and that you believe that Axs children would be eligible to be POTUS and in that we do not disagree.
However I think perhaps you are still confused about what is meant regarding birth on U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities that differentiates children born on such U.S. facilities abroad whose parents do not meet any of the requirements of parental U.S. citizenship and residency, it does not mean to say anything about the children born abroad by a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the U.S. residency requirements as their citizenship is not predicated on whether or not they were born on a U.S. facility abroad or as you stated, to children born on U.S. soil.
Here is the entire section of which you quoted with nothing skipped and with key words highlighted:
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note that, and I think you probably agree, that the words does not necessarily imply does not mean that it is implicit or settled law. I am not saying this for your benefit but for others who may misunderstand what the U.S. State Department Manual is saying. The U.S. State Department is basically saying that the law is very complicated and they are not in the position and rightly so, to rule on the Constitutional eligibility question. I think this last statement is more of a CYA than it is their opinion on the subject.
Here is a link to the entire manual:
7 FAM 1132 EVOLUTION OF KEY ACQUISITION STATUTES
7 FAM 1132.1 March 26, 1790
a. The First Congress enacted "An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" (1 Stat. 103,104) that stated, in part, that: the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
b. This Act was repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795.
7 FAM 1132.2 January 29, 1795
a. This Act (1 Stat. 414) repealed the Act of March 26, 1790, but in section 3, adopted essentially the same provision for acquiring U.S. citizenship by birth abroad.
b. This Act was repealed by the Act of April 14, 1802
7 FAM 1132.3 April 14, 1802
a. Section 4 of this Act (2 Stat. 153,155) stated, in part, that: ―the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.
‖ b. This Acts formula of permitting transmission of citizenship by ―persons who now are, or have been citizens raised a question whether persons who subsequently became citizens by birth or naturalization could transmit citizenship to their children born abroad. The right of such persons to transmit was clearly provided in the Act of February 10, 1855.
7 FAM 1132.4 February 10, 1855
a. On this date, Congress enacted "An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof," (10 Stat.604).
b. It stated, in part, that: ―persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.‖
c. The Act of February 10, 1855 did not repeal the Act of April 14, 1802.
FAM 1132.5 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878
a. The provisions of the Act of 1802 and the Act of 1855 were codified as Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1878. From 1878 to 1934, Section 1993, Rev. Stat., stated that: All children heretofore or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.
b. Section 1993 permitted the transmission of citizenship only by U.S. citizen fathers until it was amended prospectively on May 24, 1934, to permit transmission by U.S. citizen mothers. (The similar rights of women were also addressed by the 1994 amendment to section 301 INA (see 7 FAM 1133.2-1).)
It goes on and on and on
But the key point is that the "Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" (1 Stat. 103,104) that stated, in part, that: the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States., while repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795, that act in section 3, adopted essentially the same provision for acquiring U.S. citizenship by birth abroad. Subsequent acts only clarified or liberalized residency requirements or expanded the right of citizenship to the children of U.S. citizen mothers or to the children born out of wedlock. But the essence and spirit of the first act of 1790 did not change, although some may disagree.
And I agree with you that the Constitution and the 14th Amendment only classifies two types of citizenship; those who acquire it by birth and those who acquire it through naturalization and I agree with you that there are retention requirements placed upon citizenship at birth for those born overseas that are not conditions required of those born on U.S. soil.
I find the whole argument regarding the definition of NBC interesting because of my family history. My father was born in Norway and was brought to the U.S. around the age of 6 by his widowed mother several years after she came here legally and established permanent residency and remarried another Norwegian legal immigrant who adopted my father but neither of whom became naturalized citizens until some years later.
My father being so young quickly assimilated and considered himself an American. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered WWII, my father, like a lot of other patriotic young American men, at age 18 went to voluntarily enlist to fight for his country but was refused to enlist voluntarily as he was a not citizen nor were his parents at the time, so he applied for naturalization. But ironically a year later and before he became a citizen he was drafted by the U.S. Army. Even more ironically, at the time he was drafted, he was working for the NY railroad and as it was considered essential war work and he was entitled to a deferment but refused. He served with honor and distinction in the SPT earning two Purple Hearts and several metals for valor in battle. After the war, he came back to his home in New Jersey and met and married my mother and they had a child, my older brother. After my brother was born, my father finally got his naturalization papers - something that would have happened prior to my brothers birth had the U.S. Army not lost for a time his records and his discharge papers and even then made mistakes on them such as saying he served in the ETO that delayed his application. During the time my father was serving in the Army during the war, his parents were naturalized but since my father was over 21 by then, their citizenship did not confer to him.
When my father appeared before the judge presiding over his naturalization swearing in ceremony two years after my brother was born, he told my father that this was a mere formality and that in his opinion; my father became for all intense purposes a U.S. citizen when he took the military oath and proved his allegiance to this county by his military service.
I was born 12 years after my brother, after my fathers naturalization. Both my brother and I were both born on U.S. soil, but since my father was not yet officially naturalized, some say that my brother is not a NBC and would be ineligible for the office of POTUS, were as I would be.
Some would argue that since my father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of my brothers birth, that my brother retained some sort of dual allegiance to the county of my fathers birth. But nothing could be farther from the truth. My father was a Red White and Blue American through and through a true American patriot in both words and deeds. He loved this country with all his heart¸ was proud of his service to this country and knew more about American history than most who were born here, and while proud of his Viking heritage (as I am), never considered himself a Norwegian or a Norwegian-American (BTW, he hated those hyphenations, often saying either you are an American or you are not, I am an American) and would often say Love America or Leave It. He didnt even speak any Norwegian at home except when my grandparents came to visit and even then he would tell them speak English or get out!) He had no tolerance for anti-American sentiments especially during the anti-war movements of the late 1960s, he was a member in good standing with the VFW, the American Legion and the NRA, was a Conservative and a registered Republican.
I like to kid my brother about what the birthers say, telling him he is not a NBC; that he is not as much as a citizen as I am. Of course Im only doing this to rib him because thats what little sisters do but I consider my big brother just as much as an American and NBC as I am.
Republicans need to remember that you can lure conservatives to vote for a liberal even if the Democrat is more liberal. We need to nominate conservatives to win.
Well, you stirred the pot and brought out all of the NBC warriors of various stripes (anti-birthers, concern trolls, Fogblowers) by saying “we are getting somewhere” on having a Fox reporter rebut Hannity and declare Cruz to be ineligible. I expect that this came from Roger Ailes and Rove who will be backing Jeb, I expect.
I already know he's eligible. So does Senator Cruz. It's Carl Cameron and the birthers who are wrong on this. If Senator Cruz decides to run, there won't be a court in the country standing in his way.
“Obama Sr was NEVER an American citizen. So why are you not parading with a protest placard in front of the white house?”
I’m sure that comment makes sense to you. It certainly doesn’t to me, much less as a response to my # 19, to wit: Children of American citizens born overseas are indisputably American citizens. Its a question of their being natural born citizens, as called for in the Constitution as a prerequisite to presidential eligibility that is in dispute.
Care to elaborate?
I agree ‘sujets naturel’ is the proper phrasing, in that time, for natural born citizen or subject. It is the phrase used in French legal documents that referenced English natural born subjects.
I was unaware that he used the phrase once.
“So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase Natural Born Subjects is a bit deceptive...”
Not deceptive. An error, but only to the extent that he used the phrase once, in a passage I’ve never seen a birther reference. The passage birthers care about is when Vattel said the NATIVES, or INDIGENES (indigenous persons) have two citizen parents.
Vattel never said that NBS/NBCs require two citizen parents. That came from a bad translation in 1797, but the underlying words in French are NOT ‘sujets naturel’. Yet birthers have claimed thousands of times on FR alone that Vattel said a NBC requires two citizen parents. And Vattel never wrote that.
The fact you have discovered, that he used the correct phrase one time, is only proof that he was aware of the phrase, and that he chose NOT to use it in his often mis-cited sentence.
Birthers also ignore the context of Vattel. Even today, the Swiss are more concerned with parentage for citizenship, not birth location. That is a valid point for international law, and for how some countries on the European continent view citizenship, but it has never been the custom of England or the USA to look primarily to parentage.
“That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers original intent, it is ones loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born.”
Nope. They didn’t write that. The litmus test for a natural born citizen was identical to the litmus test for a natural born subject - birth under the Sovereign. NBC & NBS were used interchangeably by the ratifying legislatures for years before and after the Constitution. They are the same phrase, and it was one with an accepted legal meaning.
They could easily have written, “The President must be born to citizen parents and have lived at least 75% of his life within the USA”. Of course, Rev Wright and Bill Ayers are proof that THAT wouldn’t result in loyalty to the country. Hell, Hillary Clinton and JFKerry (who served in Vietnam, don’t you know) are both born to two citizen parents, and they both hate the USA and God as much as Obama does.
In the end, the Founders required birth within the USA, or possibly birth to citizen parent(s) outside the USA.
Someone born in the USA to two citizen parents, who moved to Iran at 3 months, and who lived there for 40 years, who then moved back and lived for 14 years in the USA would meet the criteria by all standards to run for President - but would that person be fundamentally American? Probably not. Just as Obama is fundamentally a God-hating, racist anti-American.
VOTERS have the responsibility of ensuring loyalty to the USA, but it seems the majority of American voters no longer care about America or the principles our country was founded on.
To me, citizenship seems much like the concept of claim or title in real estate.
You can't claim ownership unless the chain of claim and title to it is clear and there are no competing claims.
Citizenship is also a sort of claim or title and for the president, who has 1/3 of the government's power and supreme command of the nation's armed forces, voters are buying with their vote what they believe is a "clean title" with regard to that person and his or her loyalty to US and any other nation's claim to him or her.
The cleanest title possible, with no other claims or potential claims against it, so to speak, is that of someone born in country to citizen parents.
However you or any other entity, legal or otherwise, in the present or past has defined citizenship, everyone and everything agrees that person is a citizen of that country and no other. No other can claim that person, nor does that person have claim to any other country.
I believe that was the intent of the NBC requirement and born of citizen parents in country is the only definition that covers any and all definitions and challenges, legal or otherwise, such to grant a clear title, so to speak, of both citizenship and potential loyalty at time of birth.
Deciding inheritance claims appear to be much like determining title to real estate and both seem similar to citizenship, so the concepts are not new or unusual in law. Certainly, the FFs were aware of such legal concepts.
So, it always gets back to what was the intent of the FFs for eligibility for the highest office in the new government they were creating? What dangers, legal and otherwise, were they trying to avoid and how best to avoid them with the limits of an eligibility requirement?
Additionally, they had just won the revolution and were quite serious about loyalty and treason, just ask hero of the revolution Ben Arnold, so dismissing concerns about divided allegiance while trying to determine and understand their eligibility intentions is a mistake.
Rawle was not just a close contact of two of our greatest Founders. He was a recognized early legal expert.
You're acting like a typical birther, in demanding the highest possible level of evidence for the historical interpretation of natural born citizen, and demanding NO evidence for the novel birther one. Just sayin'.
For example, in law school, we had many conversations as students, with much variety of opinion, yet I would count myself a good friend to these people, even if there were some areas of the law we did not discuss, and even if in some of those unspoken areas we might prove later to differ. The friendship argument is a nullity, an argument from silence, and of no value in advancing the discussion.
Again, Rawle was not only a friend of at least two of our most important Founders, he was an important and recognized legal expert. Against Rawle, there is... what? Some stupid assertion that a writer who never used the term "natural born citizen" actually defined it. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It is beyond baseless, it is an absolute falsehood. It is a twisting of our Constitution. And you're fine with that. Because enough people have made the baseless claim that you give it credibility simply on the basis of the fact that a bunch of people have made it.
I wonder what other twistings of the Contitution you would tolerate.
Furthermore, I note that you are unresponsive to the grandfather clause argument. That is your choice. There are times I too simply ignore an argument, because I recognize that the judge is not interested, and wants to be convinced on some other basis. I try to accommodate my audience. It doesnt always work. But if you just ignore key objections to your argument, you have no chance of persuading your audience at all.
Once again, like a typical birther way deep into the conspiracy theory, you demand that I answer every possible point. I typed for hours yesterday. You ignore that I completely destroyed every single point DL made in the point I referenced.
If someone in business tells you something that turns out to be false 5 times in a row, do you keep doing business with that person, or do you conclude that he either has no clue about his products or is an outright charlatan? Yet you willingly indulge those like DiogenesLamp who tell you provably false things 5 times in a row. And then you come to the person who pointed out that the 5 "diamonds" you bought are only pieces of plastic, and demand that he produce more evidence that the diamond dealer isn't a real diamond dealer.
There is a reason why I say that the two citizen parent claim is FALSE, and people like DiogenesLamp are twisting the Constitution. That's not an "ad hominem" attack. It is a factual description of what these people are doing.
As for the grandfather clause, I might answer the point if I knew what you were talking about.
“You must at the very least concede that there was absolutely NO Act, law or provision for dual citizenship at the time the Constitution was signed. It did not exist as an OPTION.”
And thus it was not addressed in the Constitution. There is no prohibition in the Constitution against dual citizens. And if Russia decided today to declare all US citizens to be Russian citizens, we would all instantly be dual citizens - because we cannot control what foreign governments do.
But it also doesn’t affect us, because the Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship.
The point is, your position seems to be that you are going to cling absolutely to your claim that Vattel was the source of the "law of nations" phrase in the Constitution, EVEN IF it is shown CONCLUSIVELY that:
1. The phrase isn't just "law of nations," it's "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."
2. Vattel was only ONE writer, out of a bunch, on the "law of nations."
3. A MUCH better-known writer than Vattel wrote a VERY well known book with an entire chapter entitled, "OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
4. That writer was quoted 16 times by the Founding Fathers for every 1 time that they quoted Vattel.
5. Vattel never said a word about Felonies or the high Seas, and only mentioned Pirates once in his whole book, whereas the far better-known author discussed ALL of the above in his chapter on Offences Against the Law of Nations.
6. I can even show conclusively that, yes, the Founders purchased that author's book for use in the Senate.
All of that would be absolutely compelling evidence that the other author I mention is FAR, FAR more likely - in fact, I think we could say almost certainly - the source of that phrase in the Constitution rather than Vattel.
And yet you adamantly refuse to simply say that you are willing to go by the evidence.
That is about like being on a jury and saying, "I don't care whether the DNA evidence says this man is innocent. I'm going to vote that he's guilty."
It's not a huge thing I'm asking of you. Just a commitment to GO WITH THE EVIDENCE. Are you so married to your belief that that is so hard?
You lost. You are not debating or discussing. You are making up things to try to distract from the actual point of this thread.
Cruz is a dual citizen. There was NO dual citizenship in 1787 in either the US or in England. So what if some of our more prominent politicians of the time were declared honorary citizens? Was Jefferson born a dual citizen? No, he was not. Did he give up his US citizenship at any point in his life? No he did not. He was given an honor, which was very common back then. Much like a person would be given an honorary Doctorate who may never have set foot in a collage.
Lets repeat the two most important things there - Jefferson was NOT born a dual citizen. Jefferson never lost US citizenship.
I asked you to post the US *LAWS* regarding dual citizenship. The US *LAWS* officially recognizing dual citizenship.
Cruz was born a dual citizen. That means that AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH he was a citizen of two different countries.
Next, you show me one law or Act passed prior to the signing of the US Constitution officially recognizing dual citizenship.
You keep saying things are “clear”, yet you post NO proof, you list no sources, you provide no links.
What is clear is that you are emotionally responding to this discussion, but you have zero facts to back you up.
Maybe you should spend time researching instead of just sharing your non-fact based opinions.
Come on. You’re not even trying now. None of that made the slightest sense.
You know, about the supposed “ad hominem” bit.
If you read enough, including everything that’s been written, and weigh everything on both sides, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this entire claim is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
So why did it ever take hold?
It took hold partly because people thought, “Maybe there’s something to this. Yeah, that sounds plausible. Yeah, that sounds good.”
I certainly didn’t know enough at first to be able to say with authority that it was all BS.
So you have people making this major Constitutional claim. And it is all absolute BS. But nobody really slaps it down, because not very many people are sure whether it’s BS or not.
And it sounds good. Hey, if we believe this, then we can argue that Obama is ineligible! Hooray!
So people give this big FALSE claim credence, and before you know it, a bunch of people believe it.
And in fact, a bunch of people can’t be convinced otherwise. Because it’s such a PRETTY claim.
Well, I am telling you: the claim is absolutely false. It is supported by virtually no credible authority in history. There is not a single source close to the Founders or Framers that gives it any credibility.
There are HUNDREDS of quotes available throughout history of what people believed about natural born citizenship, and they ALWAYS believed that birth on US soil was the ONLY thing required.
It is simply a FALSE claim, and one which twists the Constitution, and for my part I think that if we value the Constitution it’s time we stopped indulging people who are twisting it and claiming it says stuff it doesn’t say.
Hmm. Well, as I recall, I HAVE posted evidence for my points. Maybe you missed it.
But here. I'll give you a chance to end the conversation right now, and I'll accept your evidence.
You say that being a dual citizen is a Constitutional bar to being President of the United States. That seems like absolute nonsense to me, since our third President, Thomas Jefferson, actually WAS a dual citizen WHILE HE OCCUPIED THE OFFICE.
But you say it doesn't matter that he was a dual citizen, because he wasn't BORN a dual citizen. Wow. I don't see the difference there. It seems to me that if you're a dual citizen, then you're a dual citizen, whether you were born one or were naturalized. But hey, what do I know?
So I'm willing to accept your claim that persons born dual citizens are barred from being President. Just show me where in the Constitution it actually says that, and then you can proclaim victory, and we can move on.
Made perfect sense to me.
So let's explore your theory. By your theory, it matters, a great deal, if some other country says that my child, born here in America, is a citizen of theirs. According to your theory, if that other country extends citizenship to them, and makes them BORN their citizen, then that makes them ineligible to OUR Presidency. Right?
You mean like claiming the decision in Wong Kim Ark said he was a natural born citizen when not only did it not say that, it would have been legally impossible for the decision TO say that.
A court can only answer the question put before it.
“None of that made the slightest sense.”
Really? You claim dual citizenship disqualifies a person from being President, even though you admit that the concept of dual citizenship didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. How could they have banned something they didn’t believe existed?
Please show me a single passage from the US Constitution that references dual citizenship. I don’t think one exists. So in what sense does the US Constitution ban a dual citizen from being President?
Suppose Botswana declared Sarah Palin to be a citizen of Botswana. Would that make her ineligible to run for President?
“It seems to me that if you’re a dual citizen, then you’re a dual citizen, whether you were born one or were naturalized. But hey, what do I know?”
Someone who accepts a foreign citizenship, as an adult, would have far more problems with ‘loyalty’ than someone made a dual citizen at birth without any option of rejecting it. If Jefferson accepted French citizenship, then his loyalty would be more questionable by it than Obama being a citizen of the UK against his will - because lets face it, Obama HATES the UK. And while Jefferson could reject being naturalized a French citizen, Obama had no opportunity.
The most adamant opposition here often comes from FReepers I know to be otherwise conservative, but this is a very emotional issue because of having a foreign spouse, children born to a non-citizen spouse, being born abroad, et cetera. It's personal for them. They can't see the national forest for the trees in their own little backyard.
There have been numerous efforts over the decades to undermine the very legal understanding of the term that you, I and others share, that is in fact the historical understanding. If indeed all the personal emoting on this issue is correct and we are wrong, why have so many Bills been sponsored to change it? It would be wholly unnecessary.
Individuals in positions of Federal power, elected and otherwise, dislike the constraints imposed upon them Constitutionally. This is not a party issue, as the problem exists on both sides of the aisle. The political and bureaucratic classes dream of expanded influence, of a post-national existence, and imagine it to be oh so much better than the limited, deliberately hobbled Constitutional vision of Federal government.
The people of this nation, the posterity to whom the Founders referred, are the big losers. We're to the point that we're now being condemned, even labeled as potential terrorists. Unfettered immigration, legal or not, is intended to overwhelm what ability we have remaining to stop it. They're slowly but surely taking our country away from us, cheered on by myopic erstwhile conservatives boo-hooing because *their* little Honey Boo-Boo should be eligible for the Presidency by golly, no matter how bizarrely remote such a possibility might be.
Oh. So you mean that Minor v. Happersett could not POSSIBLY define natural born citizenship, since the question before the Court was whether Virginia Minor should be allowed to vote?
By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Are you willing to go with the evidence on the "law of nations" phrase in the Constitution, or are you completely committed to believing whatever you want, no matter what the evidence?
Come on, now. It's one or the other.
Once again, birthers demonstrate their inability to comprehend legal cases correctly. For one, Bellei's citizenship was stripped for a failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirement. Cruz doesn't have this problem.
Secondly, the statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.
You are now making a fool of yourself.
The Constitution does not mention dual citizenship. Likely because it did not even exist as a class of citizenship in 1787. To Congress was assigned the task of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization. That was in the Constitution.
Has Congress since passed any *LAW* officially recognizing dual citizenship? You tell me. No, you show me. You find such a *LAW* and post a copy on this thread.
So, in the sense that Congress has the power to provide for such a class of citizen as “dual citizen”, yes it is in the Constitution. Please to show me that Congress has ever taken such an action and passed any such *LAW*.
You know, I would have to agree with that. But I'm trying to indulge ladysforest argument. And I want to hear the answer to my last question.
If the Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship, then how can the Constitution bar a dual citizen from being President?
Indeed it did.
I wonder whether MamaTexan has ever actually READ US v. Wong Kim Ark. Hey, that's a simple yes or no question. Let's ask her.
MamaTexan: Have you ever, prior to my posting this question, actually read the Opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark? Start to finish? Yes or no.
Ever notice how these birthers have a hard time answering simple questions? Like, if the evidence strongly indicates that "law of nations" in the Constitution came from somewhere other than Vattel, would you accept that?
Game, set, match.
You're on a winning streak lately. Can I take bets on you? Is there a betting pool somewhere?
Well, like I said, that’s what I can remember from college. It’s not my theory.
However, after sleeping on it, I’m wondering if it didn’t also have something to do with some sort of “age of accountability.”
After all, if the minimum age of a President is 35yrs old, and you subtract the 14yrs residency requirement (assuming a continuous residency), you hit the magic age of 21-years-old.
That was the voting age back then. So, I’m thinking it might have something to do with that.
I’ve got a few old books sitting around in my library concerning the drafting of the Constitution. I’ll dig into them later on when I’ve got some time and see if they have anything to say on the subject.
My point was in reference to many posters who do not think Rubio is eligible. He was born in USA to non-US citizens.
Well, then how can Obama be eligible when his father was never a US citizen?
The Obama presidency is proof, precedent, and accepted by congress and SCOTUS that any one born on US soil regardless of both parent’s being US citizen are eligible to run for president.
NO no no...just the opposite. What I said is what the US embassy told you is not a legal opinion. It is a government opinion. I see no reason why your son is not eligible to run.
I didn't miss the Hannity interview of Ted Cruz. Hannity pressed many times to get Cruz to answer about running for president and that he is eligible to be president.
Cruz would not budge. Cruz repeatably refused to answer Hannity. Hannity became frustrated with Cruz, and then Hannity predicted rounds of debate over the meaning of NBC in the blogosphere.
It looks like Ted Cruz understands the meaning about being a Natural Born Citizen.
You didn’t address the question. Would it violate the 2nd Article of the Constitution and the 20th Amendment if Vladimir Putin became President and acted as President?
So you are the Supreme Court now? You are the interpreter of the US Constitution? Seems to me that’s what you have accused others of doing, but you’re doing the same thing. Until SCOTUS has clarified an issue it’s up for grabs. The Constitutionality of Obamacare is a prime example of this. All the “birthers” have ever asked is that the issue be weighed according to the rules of evidence, with all the evidence on the table, and a determination made by the proper authorities.
Read radical for these days, I know. Only freaks would actually want the rule of law that has kept this nation free and prosperous to be followed. Anybody who wants America free and prosperous is a loon. See, I can repeat back to you everything you’ve ever said on this issue. Doesn’t take much.
repeatably = repeatedly
The issue of Obama’s eligibility was discussed and decided by the US Supreme Court in 1898.
Cruz is in a grey area. A court could arguably declare him ineligible.
After all, if the minimum age of a President is 35yrs old, and you subtract the 14yrs residency requirement (assuming a continuous residency), you hit the magic age of 21-years-old.
That was the voting age back then. So, Im thinking it might have something to do with that.
Aha. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner on my 14 year question.
Now there's no proof of this, because unlike some of the discussions on terms of Senators and Representatives, as far as I can tell, they didn't leave a record of the discussion. If I'm wrong on that, someone feel free to correct me. But I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Now we are in the realm of speculation here. Because we don't know for certain. But doesn't the number 14 seem a bit odd to you? Again, why not 15?
But if you subtract 14 from 35, you get 21. Which is exactly the legal age of adulthood in those days.
Now. Consider the historical context. On July 4, 1776, a bunch of people got together and they wrote this thing called a Declaration of Independence. And that document presumed to speak for every person on the North American continent, and to say, "We're done with you. We're starting our own blasted country."
Only it didn't. All of the people had been English citizens all of their lives, and there were quite a few who wanted to stay that way.
And more than a few of these people packed up their children and moved to England.
But what about those little children? They were born here. Did they not have any say?
By the time of the Constitutional Convention, some of those children were 11 years old. Well, what if they wanted to come back to America? Some who went to England did, and threw in their lot, forever, with us. Like William Rawle. He was one of those. His parents were Loyalists. He had come back to America in 1783, four years before the Convention, and was a bright young man who had been meeting with George Washington and Ben Franklin right there in Philadelphia, and talking about important things like... how to encourage people to come over here and cast their lot in with us.
So what rights did these children have, who were carried away from America by their parents and raised in some place like England?
A later Court would say that such children had always had at least the right to come back here and be Americans, on reaching adulthood.
I submit to you - now this is speculation, mind you - I submit to you that the Framers likely had these people in mind when they wrote the Presidential eligibility clause.
They wanted to encourage immigration of good people from Europe, while avoiding being taken over by British royalty. That much is known.
They actually had before them at least one known example of a bright young man who had come back from England and thrown his lot in with us.
I submit that they quite likely had in mind the children born here of British loyalists and carried off to England to be raised in England, when they wrote that clause. And they wanted to attract such people back, and so they specifically wrote the Constitution in such a way that such people could be raised in a foreign country until they were 21 years of age, and then as young adults come back here and precisely on reaching the age of 35 years, they would know that they could aspire to the highest office in the land.
If this is correct, then it means that the Framers of the Constitution specifically intended that a person born here could be carried abroad as a child, spend his entire growing up and formative years raised in a foreign country, and then decide he really wants to be an American, and come back here - even though he was raised in a foreign country - and live here until age 35, and run for President.
Well. So much for "foreign influence."
But let's set that aside for a moment, and just look at the number of years from a different perspective.
Fourteen years. That's not very long, is it?
So you're telling me that a guy could be 54 years old, and run for President of the United States, and have spent up to 40 of those years living in some other country.
Well, that's what the Framers of the Constitution said. It's not my idea. It's theirs.
So whether I am right about the kids-being-raised-in-other-countries thing or not, the whole meme that they wanted to pull out all the stops to avoid the faintest taint of foreign influence is simply false. And that is shown, very loudly, by their actions.
Yes, they were concerned about the Duke of Derrydoo or someplace swooping in here and buying up the Presidency.
But they don't seem to have have cared a fig whether someone born here spent most of his life abroad. And they don't seem to have cared a fig that Thomas Jefferson was a dual citizen with France, while serving with President.
So the whole birther meme is just false. It doesn't honor the Founders. It doesn't honor their intentions. It's all about what these people think the Founders ought to have wanted. And not about what they really did want.
Gee, these people are better Founders than the Founders. They are smarter Framers than the Framers.
It's too bad we didn't have these people around when the country was being founded. Because Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton... these people were obviously just a bunch of hacks who didn't know what they were doing.
Maybe someone can invent a time machine and send some of these people back to the 1700s, so we can all benefit from their wisdom.
First off, could you please provide your source for the claim that Jefferson was given French citizenship? Since the first time I have heard such was on this thread, and having spent some time looking around the net for information on this I am coming up with nothing. I read his official bio and it is not mentioned.
Meanwhile, honorary citizenship was frequently bestowed on prominent persons. Still happens in this day and age. It was understood to be a “gift”, a compliment.
But to put that to the side, Jefferson would have been grandfathered in regardless.
For the focus of this thread, Jefferson’s mid-life acceptance of honorary French citizenship (if such a thing happened) adds nothing to the discussion. Did Jefferson go there seeking to throw off his US citizenship and emigrate to France?
Why are you responding to a comment that I made to someone else as though I made it to you?
“Did Jefferson go there seeking to throw off his US citizenship and emigrate to France?”
Did Obama throw off his US citizenship and emigrate to the UK?
Has Obama shown anything but contempt and hatred to the UK? Is there any sign he considers the UK to be his second country, even?
Has he asked to become even an honorary citizen of Kenya?
Where does the US Constitution ban a dual citizen from running for President?
For a reference to Jefferson, this is what I found:
Blah blah blah.
If Vladimir Putin was elected as President and acted as President, would it violate the 2nd Article of the Constitution and the 20th Amendment? Answer the question.
When pressed to disclose the records on which Fukino based her public statements, Deputy AG Nagamine ended up saying to my colleague that it was based on Obama’s name being in the birth index. I have proven that the 1960-64 birth index was altered to include specific names from non-valid records. I have not seen any afterbirther deal with that fact. At all. It’s like the plague. Why did they alter that index? If we take Fukino at her word, then, none of her statements mean anything because they were based on a FABRICATED birth index.
The only LAWFUL, OFFICIAL word we’ve got is from Alvin Onaka, when asked in a legal procedure. The only time he was ever asked to verify any birth facts for Obama, he would not verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama. When he was asked to verify that the White House image was a “true and accurate representation” of the HI record he would not. When he was asked to verify that the information contained in the White House image was identical to the information in the HI record he would not. He is required by statute to verify anything he can, when asked by a qualified requestor.
IOW, he has effectively confirmed that the White House image is NOT a true and accurate representation of the HI record, that the information contained in it is not identical to the information in the HI record, and that he cannot confirm even that Obama is male or that he who claims to have been born in Honolulu was actually born on the island of Oahu.
The only logical reason that Onaka could confirm what he did, refuse to confirm what he did, and still claim to be obeying the law (all this on 3 separate, consistent verifications) is if the HI record is legally non-valid. The presumption of regularity means that it is legally presumed that Onaka acted according to the law, as he claimed. IOW, the legal presumption at this point has to be that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid.
Which also happens to explain why Fukino based her claims on a birth index that was altered to include individual non-valid names.
And also happens to explain why the White House had to forge a COLB and a long-form, and why his draft registration had to be forged, why he doesn’t have a valid US social security number and fails e-verify, why his passport had to be breached 3 times, why he claimed until 2007 that he was born in Kenya, and why Soros’ people have threatened the media heads with annihilation and/or death if they allowed Obama’s ineligibility to be reported. It also explains why the 2 people who agreed to present a petition for Hillary to be able to challenge Obama’s eligibility at the DNC Convention in 2008 died very shortly after agreeing to do it, which necessitated Phil Berg filing a federal lawsuit the day after the 2nd volunteer died.
There’s much more I could say - stuff that is explained by this reality - but it’s wasted on you. You won’t even deal with the blatant stuff I just mentioned above.
I have one thing left to say specifically to you, then: One Day the truth will be known, and Obama, Soros, and all the rest who sided with them will bow to the truth. Until then, say what you want - but know that in the end you’ll have to eat every word you’ve said, and the bitter taste will not be worth the gloat you get right now from siding with the hostage-takers. The truth will not be hostage forever. You will do well to remember that. In the end it is Lazarus who has plenty for eternity, not the rich man who so despised Lazarus. Eat your fill of gloat now, if you like, because the memory of the gloating will have to last you through an eternity of regret.
I’ll add that I’m not concerned with Jefferson. Prior to this thread, I had not heard he had been made a French citizen. However, the dual citizenship argument makes no sense, since the Constitution does not address it. The idea that a foreign country can pass a law making it illegal for a US citizen to run for President is simply bizarre - almost as bizarre as the idea that Obama considers himself a subject of Queen Elizabeth!
It's an open conversation, right? You told this guy what he said made no sense to you. I chimed in and said that what he said made perfect sense to me.
So why are you NOT responding to the question that I asked of YOU? Let's try again:
So let's explore your theory. By your theory, it matters, a great deal, if some other country says that my child, born here in America, is a citizen of theirs.
According to your theory, if that other country extends citizenship to them, and makes them BORN their citizen, then that makes them ineligible to OUR Presidency. Right?
It's a pretty simple question. Straightforward, yes or no question.
Hawaii told Arizona that Obama Jr was born there:
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.