Posted on 01/22/2015 2:41:41 PM PST by big bad easter bunny
The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.
Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.
Stari Decisis. Obama set the precedent. What difference does it make now?
The Current Occupant was not troubled in the least with the nuances of the state of citizenship of his father. The argument has been reduced to a moot point, and not applicable to Ted Cruz in this circumstance.
Nowhere is there a requirement that both parents be “natural born citizens”, only that one of them should be, and the birth in a foreign country in no wise compromises Ted Cruz’ right to be declared a “natural born citizen”. If this does impair the claim, than a LOT of children born while their military of State Department parents were overseas, are also denied the “natural born” status.
The very first Congress (roughly the same set of people who wrote the Constitution) passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 that was signed by President Washington (April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797).
The act fulfilled the Constitutionally enumerated power of Congress to establish the rule of naturalization. In that Act, It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens” — the only U.S. statute to ever use the term “natural born citizen”.
One minor typo correction from my prior email - it is Title 8 not Title 18, my bad.
I am very glad I asked this question by all the wigging out that has occurred, many people here sound like the anti birthers out there 7 years ago. This is not giving any ammunition to them, they will come up with it on their own as revenge for questioning Obama. Ted needs to just come out and justify his understanding of the law, that’s it, I have every right to have my understanding of the Constitution.
“Please provide the relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution that clearly and unambiguously define “Natural Born” as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth.”
Lame. Obviously the meaning of the term “Natural Born” was as clear to the people of the time as the term “Thou shout not kill”. The only way to prove anything is to define what “Natural born citizen” meant. There is a common sense tendency to believe that it meant a lot. That it was in fact the strongest qualifying term used in the entire constitution. Because it is in fact so important to the survival of the country. I would be curious to see how ancient dictionaries defined the term.
I do know that anyone with any survival skills who was sitting down to write such a great constitution would be a fools to not raise that bar to an extreme level.
For me it would be a citizen born in the US to two US parents. With the only exclusion being any US citizen who fought in the revolutionary war.
Geez, thank you. Same stuff, different day.
Cruz or lose!
Cruz is pretty cool in most ways but,
I’ll tell you this much if Cruz had his way then the term “Illegal Immigrant” would be a mute term. Because Anyone could just walk up to the boarder and get a “Citizenship” card. And that pretty creepy.
Cruz is eligible.
There have been recent articles about him giving up his dual citizenship. There are many articles on Google about this.
Cruz was born in Alberta, Canada, in 1970. The possible 2016 presidential candidate’s mother is American, making him eligible for the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/10/ted-cruz-renounces-canadian-citizenship/
My answer is to look at the current president. OBVIOUSLY the natural-born citizenship requirement is no longer operative.
The NBC Fever Swamp has its own constitution? Who knew?
I don’t think I have ever seen such a confrontational agreement.
BTW, where can I find a substantive exposition with citations for your “legal Constitutional” definition of “Natural Born Citizen”? I thought your whole position was built around the notion that there is NOT any such definition.
Also, can you cite any contemporaneous reference from the late 18th century expounding that notion that natural born citizenship requires only one co-citizen parent? And nothing from English Çommon Law, please, we are speaking here of the nascent United States.
IBTZ
The word is “moot” not “mute”.
Also, you have a pretty creepy misapprehension of Cruz’s position on illegal immigration.
No it doesn't.
Show me where the constitution says "both parents" at any place. It is not in there at all. Zero. Zilch.
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.