Posted on 02/05/2016 8:22:26 PM PST by kathsua
Those who think Sen. Ted Cruz can be elected to a job he isn’t eligible for are ignoring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If Republicans make the mistake of nominating Cruz for President of the United States, Democrats in California and other states will challenge his eligibility. There’s at least a 90% probability the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco would rule him ineligible because he is a naturalized citizen rather than a “natural born citizen†as required by the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.telegraph.co.uk ...
Yes, Cruz endorsed Roberts in 2005. So did the huge majority of conservatives in the country, including those right here in FR.
So that “Cruz is a dirtbag because he endorsed Roberts” crap doesn’t fly.
Well I guess the supreme court was wrong then when hey declared that a citizen woman who has a child abroad passes her citizenship down to her child- and is no different than a woman having her child on soil-
It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under
current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a
child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status. In Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS,162 the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in†the United States, or could stay abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship:
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens
abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so.163
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
No getting around that- You can try to keep making the case that any law enacted by congress means a person is ‘naturalized; but the supreme court recognizes that there is a difference between naturalization of ‘at birth and by birth’ and those who acquire citizenship through an act that requires a process- The supreme court has indicated that there is no difference between an ‘at birth’ child and a ‘by birth’ child-
The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.
Horace Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203 (speaking specifically of the aforementioned exceptions)
Umm, yeah. By definition, there is either “permanent” or “temporary.” They left, so it was temporary. Do you know of another term that is anywhere between permanent and temporary?
Or not
John Roberts and William Kennedy can’t be trusted
They both do things out of spite
[[Do you know of another term that is anywhere between permanent and temporary]]
Permaporary?
Nicely played
What state was Ted Cruz born?
The language there appears quite clear, to me.
Nothing which you just sent overwhelms it, for that portion of the Code which I'm trying to draw attention to is the most explicit.
How can explicit wording be set aside by going far afield of it?
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth --- is either the present law of the land in this regard, or it is not.
If it is not, it is not by merely citing to me yet other mentions of past law, and quotations from individuals regarding the laws, when we have actual Code that is quite narrowly specific as per Cruz's own particular conditions of birth.
That portion of the laws of the land would most certainly need be consulted, and then if set aside in any portion, those set-asides need be justified at each step along the way -- or else the U.S. Code produced through Representative government is near entirely worthless, and the government itself be invalidated.
Where would it end?
You wrote;
Does not say this artificial contraption of your contemporaneous devising, which contraption includes mention of "naturalization act" as something of a red herring.
Are you trying you distract me (and others too) or first and foremost yourself in order to salvage your previous statements?
Cruz is not a citizen of the United States due to himself becoming a naturalized citizen, but instead due to the clarification of the laws -- in regards to Constitutional language which we should by default assume was known to all the various 'framers' of this portion of U.S. Code -- was naturally enough by dint of birth to a U.S. citizen himself born as a citizen of the United States.
The only possible hang-up I can see which remains, is that he well enough(?) could have been born with dual citizenship.
Yet since he never has renounced his own U.S. citizenship, then from birth retained that citizenship.
[[8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth -— is either the present law of the land in this regard, or it is not.
If it is not, it is not by merely citing to me yet other mentions of past law, and quotations from individuals regarding the laws, when we have actual Code that is quite narrowly specific as per Cruz’s own particular conditions of birth.]]
That perfectly sums up what I’ve been dealing with bushpilot as well- citing old cases, citing old quotes-
Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign.... Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Supreme Court Justice Story, majority opinion, Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
The short answer is this is just more dicta not determinative of an actual NBC case or controversy. It has potential persuasive authority, but is not binding on future courts.
Also of interest is the fact that the 1790 Naturalization Act does what it is said cannot be done, treat the subject of natural born citizenship under the congressional naturalization power in statutory form. This was done by the founders themselves, and utterly destroys the notion that an absolute wall of separation exists between statutory definition and common law definition of NBC status.
Put another way, the test for NBC cannot simply be “if it is in a statute, it is not a natural born status,” because the founders themselves acted contrary to that. What then can be the perfect brightline test? Nguyen (2001) gets close to finding it in the question of conditionality:
A) If some condition must be met after birth before citizenship can be asserted, then we are looking at a form of naturalization where birth by itself did not confer citizenship, hence not NBC.
B) But even if citizenship is conferred at birth, said citizenship may be surrendered voluntarily by failure to meet some condition, such as living within the US for some fixed number of years. This would be the case of Bellei, who ostensibly had his citizenship from birth, but by his own voluntary act, surrendered his ability to claim that status.
The objection here is no doubt raised that this surrender occurs under a rule of naturalization, and so cannot be a reference to the common law status of NBC. But as we demonstrated above, it is possible for statutes created under the congressional power of naturalization to address NBC status, and in fact it has happened in the past, and under the pen of the founders themselves.
So while I understand everyone here is earnest in their desire to defend what they see as the constitutional rule, if this case ever does make it to SCOTUS (which I doubt), both the newer paradigm of Nguyen and the 1790 precedent will figure large in the analysis. This, coupled with the fact that the court is inclined to be generous concerning full political participation of the citizenry, would make it extremely likely the Court would rule in favor of Cruz.
Peace,
SR
“If he became a citizen because of the naturalization act he is a naturalized citizen.”
A naturalization act does more than naturalize citizens. It describes who needs to be naturalized, who does not, and how naturalization will take place.
The first act of naturalization was enacted in 1790, just 18 months after the ratifying of the Constitution. It specifically provided that “natural born citizenship” would apply to children of citizens born abroad.
My point in noting this law which no longer has any force is that it contradicts your oversimplified theory.
His U.S.-born mother would confer her citizenship on him. She doesn’t stop being an American just because she’s on a foreign-registered ship.
The difference between Obama’s birth and Cruz’s is that Ann Dunham was one year shy of being able to confer citizenship to her son at that time. The same was not true of Mrs. Cruz.
Game over. [ding ding ding, we have a winner. no more calls please]
If you've been trying to say Cruz is ineligible, then you may now cease and desist.
The evidence which you bring includes key provision which undermines and further -- invalidates what appears to me to have been your cause for the last -- how many days have you been posting these same things over-and over?
Or have you been trying to argue the opposite -- that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for POTUS?
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES (1803)
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.