Posted on 05/06/2013 9:44:33 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“Another birther controversy could be brewing for 2016,” MSNBC host Chuck Todd informed on Monday. Though this time aimed at a Republican: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was born in Canada. While Cruz likely doesn’t face any real eligibility problems, Todd acknowledged, “questions are being asked.”
Snip~
How exactly is “natural-born citizen” defined? Since Cruz’s mother was born in the U.S. and his father became a citizen in 2005, Todd explained, going on to list similar scrutiny faced by President Obama, George Romney, and John McCain.
“The legal evidence seems to side with Cruz,” Todd argued, “but there is a grey area, and that may be all his opponents need.”
“It’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born,” Peter Spiro, a professor at Temple University, stated in response to Todd’s earlier question about how the term is defined. To clarify, Todd summed up: “If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad, no matter where, if they are U.S. citizens, if…one of your parents is a U.S. citizen — then that should qualify as natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
I did some formatting to make it easier to read. My first thought was that in 2525 when we are all droids someone will say "Well the term of art We The People was not defined."
The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?
There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.
OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?
There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.
Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?
"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;"
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S Constitution. I'm just not seeing the problem with Cruz's eligibility. There seems to be none, in fact.
Only legal discovery including deposition of witnesses and access to Barry 1961 original vital records can get to the truth. All else is speculation.
Based on behavior, as a fraud examiner I see Kapiolani behaving in a way that shows consciousness that their records the they can legally access do not support a claim that Barry was born there. That doesn’t mean that they can prove that he wasn’t but only that they cannot find sufficient evidence to raise money by making their own claim that Barry was born there. They are not prepared to rely on Barry’s claim that he was.
Perhaps Kapiolani asked Barry to provide them with a certified copy of his LFBC and Barry refused!
I re-posted your comment from the ABC comment section here. I had no idea you were a FReeper.
0bastard is also (most likely, since we don’t know who his mother/father are, or date or place of birth) not a NBC. Just like anyone else without 2 citizen parents and not born on US soil.
There have been thousands of extremely well researched and historically relevant comments on numerours threads. I read many of them. Historically, NBC always meant two citizen parents and born on US soil.
It isn’t just your opinion that he’s a militant Islamic Mozlem who is an enemy of the United States, it’s a fact!
Then let me help clarify the problem for you. Ted Cruz owes his citizenship to the Citizenship act of 1934. Had congress not passed this law, Ted Cruz would not be a citizen. "Natural born citizens" do not require the operation of a law to be citizens. They are citizens by nature.
Ted Cruz shares the exact same circumstances of birth as Aldo Mario Bellei. They were both born in Foreign nations to American Mothers and Foreign Fathers.
Bellei was stripped of his citizenship because he did not adhere to the requirements of that citizenship act of 1934 which granted him citizenship.
A natural citizen is not a citizen by the virtue of a man made law, and so has no requirements to which he must adhere.
If Bellei could be stripped of his citizenship, so could have Ted Cruz had he not adhered to the requirements specified in the Citizenship act of 1934. Again, this is the distinction. A "natural" citizen does not have to adhere to any requirements, and cannot be stripped of citizenship short of treason.
That makes even more sense; thanks. There is a story behind both the posting of that letter & more importantly the removal of it. I hope we eventually know the whole story.
No they didn't. The applied statutory law in the guise of the 14th amendment, and their application of THAT is even subject to interpretation.
A citizen by statutory law is not a "natural" citizen.
Since, admittedly, Congress created the federal statute...
What power does the Constitution give the Congress with regards to issues of citizenship?
“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;”
Again, article II, section 1.
Okay, I'll boil it down.
Sen. Ted Cruz obtained his citizenship by way of the particular statue that was in place at the particular time he was born.
That statue, was created by the federal Congress.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of creating naturalization laws (and only naturalization laws regarding citizenship) as it see's fit.
Those laws can, and do change over time.
Congress (outside the ratification process) does not have the Constitutional authority to bestow "natural born" citizenship upon anybody...at any time.
Since it took a Congressional statue (i.e. naturalization law) for Cruz's mother to pass citizenship on to him, Sen. Ted Cruz is in no way a "natural born Citizen."
Sen. Ted Cruz is in fact, a naturalized citizen at birth.
You are wrong DL. Half of the WKA decision discussed the meaning of natural born citizen. That was a part of the rationale that led to their conclusion, and thus is binding on subsequent courts. The US Supreme Court could hear another case and overturn the WKA decision, but that seems a bit unlikely...
Look, I posted the Constitutional qualifications twice---from the original source. It's pretty plain that Cruz is included in those qualifications, IMO.
Byron York did a pretty good article on the historical application of the term "natural born citizen." Legal scholars largely agree that "citizen by birth" is the best modern day equivalent of the Founders' original meaning.
Cruz is not a naturalized citizen. That's absurd.
"Petitioner is capable of suffering the same harm in near future elections, as many being touted as candidates for president and vice president are born of non-U.S. citizen parents (one or both), and do not fit the precedent definition of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874), including Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz. The issue of who is a natural born citizen and who decides who is a natural born citizen needs to be settled now." In the Supreme Court in the State of Florida, Petition for Wit of Mandamus, page 9
http://www.scribd.com/doc/138831414/FINAL-Voeltz-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-mandamus
Rick Santorum!!!!
That's got to be the most ridiculous claim of all. Of course, Senator Santorum is eligible to be President or Vice-President. And so are Senator Rubio, Senator Cruz, Governor Jindal and Governor Haley.
Serving out the term you were elected to and keeping to principles -- that would be something rare and valuable to really shoot for.
So if I say "Go Ted Cruz" I mean just keep doing what you're doing and don't let personal ambition distract you.
I suspect Cruz would be ruled eligible, but there has never been a case that I know of covering his situation. My GUESS is the court would rule he was born an American citizen, and thus was a natural born citizen...but that is a bit iffy.
In the end, I think it will turn out that any citizen who is not a naturalized citizen will be eligible to run. The idea that Hillary Clinton is a loyal American, and Ted Cruz is not, is pretty insane. If it came down to Cruz vs Clinton in 2016, I’d buy fake IDs and try to vote 10 times for Cruz!
When she applied for a US passport at age 18, she was asked (presumably by the Dept. of State) to declare if she intended to be an American or a Canadian. It was her choice and she chose American. Yet her BC is from a Toronto hospital.
That’s your personal opinion but over the last 115 years, court after court has disagreed with your interpretation.
And, with specific reference to the eligibility of Barack Obama:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: Judge Jeffrey S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.
The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Did his citizenship originate from a Congressional statute?
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.