Posted on 08/27/2013 10:44:47 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
Congress and Zero cannot amend the Constitution by themselves.
If his mother had returned and he had been born in the US tyhere might be an argument since the presidence has been set by Obama born in the US with a foreign father ...
but Ted has 2 strikes against him...more than even Obama has...
meanwhile any illegal alien anchor baby born in the US with 2 illegal alien parents not under the jurisdiction of..can be president of the United states, a country he/she has no alleigence to but a proven disrespect instead ???
No where. Just gobbledy gook on the internet and from birther mouths. Levin is right, they're nuts.
Cruz was given the birth certificate without needing naturalization. he is a US citizen from birth. He IS a natural born citizen until some idiot birther wins a court case against him.
Good luck with that.......
The Constitution wasn't written as a dictionary, save for Article III, Section III. You must look "elsewhere" to find their intent.
"Lacking that, please provide the relevant US Law(s) passed by Congress and signed by a US President that codifies your understanding/opinion/knowledge that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born". "
Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to define a "natural born Citizen." They only have the power of naturalization.
"Lacking that, please point us to the relevant US Supreme Court decision/ruling that proves that it takes 2 parents that are US Citizens for a newborn to be "Natural Born"."
No SCOTUS case has ever been heard, and decided, regrading the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the office of Commander in Chief.
“It is an important question, but as the law currently stands today, he’s eligible....”
Huh? There is NO law that defines NBC. You made that point in your 3 questions post.
The reason we’re discussing it here is because nobody knows for sure what NBC really is, but many have strong opinions one way or another.
Original intent does not have to have been ruled on by the supreme court to exist.
The original intent was very plainly placed in the constitution - No divided loyalties for those holding the office of President.
Do you claim that there was some other original intent?
Why would they have to amend the constitution?
There is no reason they could not pass a law that fits within the broad terms of “Natural Born” and then the US Supreme Court could weigh in.
Quite correct, SoConPubbie - the Constitution does not define what “natural born citizen” means, nothing in U.S. Code that deals with citizenship differentiates citizenship at birth from “natural born” citizenship in any fashion, and the only relevant case law says that citizen at birth is the same as “natural born”.
Where the Obama case is different is that his mother’s status at the time of his birth may not have automatically granted him citizenship if he was not born inside the United States (there has been some argument over exactly what the law was at the time, and I have not seen the end result of that argument).
McCain, of course, was born to two citizen parents, so even though it was outside the country, he was a citizen at birth and by the reasons above, a natural-born citizen.
Cruz’s case is the most like the proposed Obama case (assuming birth outside the US), but there can be no dispute that he is a citizen by birth because his mother’s status clearly passes the test (residing in the US for a minimum of 10 years and minimum 5 after age 14) that was in place at the time, so Cruz is also a natural-born citizen.
Why would they have to amend the constitution?
There is no reason they could not pass a law that fits within the broad terms of “Natural Born” and then the US Supreme Court could weigh in.
Using that logic, the Congress and POTUS could pass a law redefining what an “arm” is and take away all the guns.
Geezus.......
I will continue to propose that ANYONE who uses this forum to propagate the stupid idea that Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen according to the constitution be banned from this forum.
There is no truer Natural Born American than Ted Cruz in the Government today. Anyone using this forum as a means of tearing down this man or insulting the rest of the forum with stupid vapid arguments about whether or not Ted Cruz is “eligible” should be treated as a DU or MSM plant and be shown the door.
There is always a point at which one must draw a line in the sand. This is that point.
Yes, now the anti-Cruz leftists can take the birther baton from the anti-Obama birthers and continue with the race. The transition should be smooth because a lot of historical research has already been completed and neatly organized for this new crop of birthers.
In the end, the voters and their electors will once again decide the issue and Cruz will "lose" only those voters he could never have gotten anyway.
Agree with you. The crux of the issue — the requirement for the President to be a natural-born citizen — is that he (or she) have no allegiance to any other country. Neither parent being at the time of birth a citizen of another country, not born in another country, not self-identifying as a foreign student to slip into an ivy-league school, and also not accepting any honorary or dual citizenship of another country.
As much as I appreciate and respect Ted Cruz, I do not believe he meets the requirement. However, I will vote for him if the alternative is any Democrat.... for the good of the country.
Thank you.
If Ted Cruz runs, I will fall over myself running to the voting booth so I can cast my ballot for him.
Two issues here: where you are born and to whom; and the issue of loyalty vs citizenship.
Let’s address the latter first, because that really hangs people up. Citizenship can be conferred automatically. We must never interpret the constitution to mean that no one with a dual citizenship is eligible. Tomorrow Jamaica could make a candidate a citizen and poof, his candidacy is over. Dual citizenship is thus meaningless as a disqualifier.
Hopefully it would be difficult in these technological times to hide that a candidate spent 5-10 years outside our country, voting, involved in his host country’s government. Even as an American citizen, one hopes that his loyalty would be questioned and he would not be chosen as a serious candidate. That would be an example of divided loyalty. Yes, president Obama is borderline on that account, and much of his past has been obscured.
Back to the first point: where you are born and to whom. In 1961, and possibly today (?), the law of the land was that an American woman giving birth outside the country had to have lived 5 years after the age of 15 in the USA to be able to confer her citizenship onto her baby. This is what birthers are all about.
We have never seen an actual, non-forged proof that Barack Obama was born in the USA.
When she was a 17 year old girl “in trouble,” in 1961 with a baby of a different race, she could easily have gone where her Seattle school chums in such positions went. They popped over the border into Canada to the unwed mother homes run by either the Salvation Army or the Catholic Church. Usually they gave the babies up for adoption. She was not old enough to confer citizenship.
She may have changed her mind about giving up her mixed race baby, because within a month of his birth, she was alone with a little baby she didn’t know how to care for, enrolled in the university in Seattle. (She was never seen pregnant in Hawaii. She never ever lived with Barack Obama Senior.).
These are the two different questions raised by foreign birth or loyalty.
Ted Cruz was born outside the country to a woman eligible to confer citizenship. As was John McCain. No one knows where Barack Obama was born, and that is all birthers want to know.
Personally, I think Ted Cruz would pass muster with the Founding Fathers with flying colors. His heart and mind are unquestioningly aligned with, and welded to this country and its Founding Ideals.
My view is that the Framers inserted the NBC clause to guard against those with divided loyalties from ever assuming the office of President. That was a wise thing to do on their part, but it was only a stop gap measure, meant to filter out those least likely to bear such an innate loyalty to America.
They couldn't know that one day, a person like Barack Obama, who shows little evidence of the desired loyalty to this country and its ideals, would one day lay claim to eligibility to the office through a tenuous connection of birth - or that a man such as Ted Cruz, who, though being born outside this country to just one American citizen parent, would be so superior in loyalty and love for this country.
Put them both before the Framers with resumes in hand, and there's no doubt that one would pass, and the other would fail their test.
All that said, there can be no doubt that there is a case to be made regarding Ted Cruz' technical eligibility to hold that office. Instead of firing cannons at those who bring up those points, I think it would be better to do your best to convince them through reason and logic.
Freerepublis Thread about “Concern Trolls”;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2594943/posts
One thing to understand is the MSM has telegraphed its intent to use this issue against Cruz. 12 stories in 2 days by the Washington Post is a clear sign they think they can cause a deep division, perhaps enough to prevent him from running, or winning if he runs. I don't believe this is an issue that can be allowed by conservatives to take one of our best candidates out. It's one (among many) of the battles we will have to help Cruz fight if he runs and if so, when he wins the nomination.
The power of the MSM/democrat complex is looming on this one, it's clear they mean to use it. The amount of people who are drawn in by this nonsense, many of whom I have some respect for in other areas is disturbing.
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.