If he has to renounce his citizenship to any other country, would that not be sufficient proof that he was not NBC?
Madness.
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 ...
Exactly. Thanks for your post.
So you're, what, a conservative anti-Cruz activist...?
But he isn't and neither is Cruz or Rubio. The Constitution either means something or it doesn’t, ignoring it to suit our needs is what the Democrats do. Should we just become democrat lite?
Yes...if Obama is eligible...then Cruz is eligible.
Legal precedent has been set by Obama
Which is why we still need that Obama Hawaii Birth Cert released. Obama not being eligible...but not removed....will be precedent for Cruz to be President
I just hope the PhonyCon RINO Obama Supporter Anti Birthers do not go after Cruz
Tell that to the Supreme Court.
If he has to renounce his citizenship to any other country, would that not be sufficient proof that he was not NBC?
Madness.
“A birth record filled out by a parent at the time of birth designates the citizenship of the child. If a Vietnam ‘hooker’ fill out the birth record and claimed American citizenship for the child based on the American soldier father, the baby would be an American. The mother could also claim the baby as Vietnamese and the baby would have dual citizenship.”
In the fall of 2009, right when Orly had a case before Judge Carter having submitted an affidavit with the CPGH Kenyan BC attached threatening to result in discovery that could prove the HI vital records to be inconclusive...
...the 9th Circus inserted dicta into a case, Marguet-Pillado, that suddenly declared a foreign-born child born of the unmarried lover of an American to be a potential “natural born citizen” at birth if a mere “biological connection” to an American could be established (if wasn’t in this case).
This issue wasn’t even before the court but suddenly in dicta the court offhandedly declared that in effect, even if Barry’s mom was unmarried and underaged and delivered him in Kenya and was a UK subject at birth, Barry was NBC because he had a “biological relationship” to a US citizen, his mom.
See my FR thread:
“Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya (vanity)”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2857598/posts
In support of the opinion in US v Marguet-Pillado, 9th Cir. 2011, Judge Gwin, writing for the majority in his “III Analysis” dicta, states: “No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was ‘an accurate statement of the law,’ in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.”
See Seizethecarp's post #67.
Null and void,
Thanks for the ping!
Seizethecarp,
And because it was considered a threat, Minor vs. Happersett was scrubbed when it was needed.
Then ignored; people blew it off and called what the judge said there was “dicta”.
They just pick and choose...... arrrgh!
The 9th Circus DID include compliance with the statutory residency requirement for Stanley Ann a Kenya birth. Note that the statutory requirement for married v. unmarried moms. If Stanley Ann was married under US law she would NOT meet residency. If she was legally unmarried (say due to bigamy rendering her US marriage a nullity), she WOULD meet the residency for her child to be a statutory citizen at birth.
This is just DICTA, but it appears to only NBC definition by a federal appeals court so far that would relate to Barry’s fact pattern at birth (how convenient, coming in the middle of Orly’s case before Judge Carter including a Kenyan BC in an affidavit).
“He was born before both of his parents naturalized as U.S. citizens. He is not a Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. He is a statutory citizen.”
The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you, back in 1898.
Same logic.
The Constitution should mean what it says all the time not just when it is convenient, or it won't matter because we have became the enemy we are pledged to defeat.
Idiots on the bench can have any opinion we let them get away with.
That is exactly right. If you are an American citizen, that citizenship is in your body - you don't renounce it if you go to another country and if you have a child there, it “inherits” your citizenship and you fill out a form stating such. You are the American (with American reproductive parts) if you are in America or in Pogostan or Magicland or the land of the Wizard of Oz.
“If you are an American citizen, that citizenship is in your body - you don’t renounce it if you go to another country and if you have a child there, it “inherits” your citizenship and you fill out a form stating such.”
Note that the 9th Circus requires compliance with “residency requirements” for a foreign birth. Only a trial on the merits with full discovery of the birth location, marriage legitimacy of the parents could determine whether the 9th Circus standard #2 is met. The SCOTUS would have to uphold it to extend this definition beyond the 9th Circus (the most overturned Circuit, BTW...thus 9th Circus, IMO).
I’m really getting tired of seeing people on FR saying Rubio, Cruz and/or Jindal are eligible to be pres. In that case, millions of Mexican and other anchor babies are eligible as well.
I don’t care if Cruz is the second coming of George Washington, he’s not eligible. Truth is truth and facts are facts.
My grandson was born in a foreign country (England). On the date of his birth, his American father registered him as an American and got an American passport for him. He was an American when he was born due to his father being American. The father's American Passport showed he was an American. There was no discovery or trial.
As far as the 9th Circuit Court (I think that's court of appeals) - that freaky lib excuse for a judge guy can go pound sand.
“The Constitution should mean what it says all the time not just when it is convenient, or it won’t matter because we have became the enemy we are pledged to defeat.”
The problem is that facts and circumstances change such that fact pattern not possible or not contemplated by the founders, amendments or subsequent case law.
Examples:
1. at the time of Minor v Happersett, wives ONLY had the unitary citizenship of their husband in the US.
2. being a bastard child was had legal consequences for citizenship
3. there was no provision as of MvH regarding how adoption would affect NBC status, especially in infancy.
4. there was no provision as of MvH for in vitro fertilization and NBC status.
5. the intent of the founders, arguably following Vattel, would make McCain NBC as the child of a serving US military man
6. as of MvH the end of automatic citizenship change on marriage hadn’t happened creating instant dual citizen children if the statutes were applied to the sexes in a non-discriminatory manner. Would SCOTUS today regard the context of the MvH where ONLY the male parent passes citizenship to be nullified by women’s current retention of her own citizenship on marriage?
7. now the 9th Circus doesn’t even require marriage but only a biological relationship to a US citizen (sperm donor), apparently no infusion of US culture via personal fatherhood
None of these issues have been considered and resolved by SCOTUS, the only final arbiter. And the facts and circumstances of Barry’s birth are not known.
I cannot personally declare Barry to be or not to be NBC at this time, given the lack of a SCOTUS ruling on all of the above unknown that apply to Barry.
“As far as the 9th Circuit Court (I think that’s court of appeals) - that freaky lib excuse for a judge guy can go pound sand.”
IIRC, it was a three judge panel...
Quite wrong. It was and probably still is* sufficient if the parents were naturalized citizens at the time of the child's birth.
*Look, these questions have the country tied in knots. It is absolutely mandatory that the SCOTUS accept one of the many appeals before it to consider the case of Presidential eligibility for us. It is their responsibility, not ours.
“IIRC, it was a three judge panel...”
That’s right. If it was a Court of Appeals, has to be a panel, not just one judge.
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.