Posted on 03/23/2015 10:36:02 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
A controlling precedent was set when Congress allowed the thug from Hawaii/Kenya/Indonesia/Chicago to usurp the office. The standard seems to be any claim to either parent being a US citizen at the birth of the candidate. Cruz meets that standard better than the communist does, and that is good enough for me. I would prefer that “Natural Born Citizen” have a stricter definition, child of two US citizen parents at birth, but that is not the definition that has now been accepted.
Your attitude is typical of the ultra-right wing Brownshirt Jewish Capitalist / NKVD right-wing KGB Nazi cabal of KKK racist groupthink-individualist manifest-destiny isolationists who comprise Free Republic.
BARACK OBAMA (whose middle name is NOT “Hussein” as you fools like to point out; he is a CHRISTIAN and went to Christian Madrasas, is a CERTIFIED ONE HUNDRED PERCENT NATURAL PERSON BORN HERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW OF AMERICA ONE HUNDRED PERCENT MY FRIEND
As confirmed by someone who worked for a time at a CERTIFIED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF HAWAII STATE OFFICIALS in Hawaii, before she found herself dead by unusual causes and with three hundred grand inexplicably deposited in her account, who said SHE HAD SEEN IN PERSON HIS NAME ON A DOCUMENT which no, you cannot see.
....before she found herself dead by unusual causes and with three hundred grand inexplicably deposited in her account....
I assume you are talking about Loretta Fuddy? First I have heard of the $300,000
An excellent and succinct question.
At this point the de facto consensus is that there are two types of citizens: citizens at birth, and naturalized citizens, as you suggest. Thus the "Natural Born Citizen" term used in the Constitution is taken as a synonym with the category "citizen at birth" by most people, including apparently Federal Judges.
The fact that the common use of language would indicate that these mean the same thing has no doubt helped this consensus to thrive.
Contra this de-facto and common understanding the birthers have always maintained that there are, in fact, three types of citzenship.
The birthers have for the most part not agreed on exactly what these extra requirements are. They include a mix of some of the following:
You would think that with all these very specific definitions the advocates would have some very specific laws to point to, but they don't. The term "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined in the US Constitution, nor is it elaborated on in US Code. So advocates were left with somewhat esoteric texts, such as 19th century French law dictionaries to make their case.
In the end it proved less than compelling.
Courts rejected all attempts to evaluate Obama using any of these additional criteria, so it appears that the de-facto definition is now the de-jure one as well.
But of course, birthers do not agree. And interestingly, Cruz fails every single additional test outlines above. So even though birthers don't agree on exactly what NBC means, they probably all do agree that Ted Cruz is not an NBC.
I suspect this will cause him as little problem as it caused Obama.
Ted Cruz's father became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005.
So if you think that NBC requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the kids birth for that child to be an NBC - Cruz definitely fails the test, and is not an NBC.
As you can see here on FR, there are many birthers who feel this way about him.
Wait, so because both my parents were born in Poland I am not a natural born citizen?
Maybe. Where were you born? It does make a difference. Or are you one of the anti-birthers who throws up strawmen? In other words, if you’re parents were born in Poland, you were born in Poland, then you are not a natural born citizen. That’s pretty easy, isn’t it?
“We won’t know until Orly Taitz chimes in ...”
When she got up this morning, she needed to check her calendar, to see if she was practicing real estate, practicing dentistry, or practicing constitutional law, and getting rebuked for incompetence before the bench.
I also thought those were the guidelines, with the only exception being the people that were born prior to the establishment of the United States of America. According to the MSM Obama's birthplace has been established as well as global warming. So anybody that questions it is stupid.
The term "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined in the US Constitution, nor is it elaborated on in the US Code.
Short and straight to the point. In short, the qualifications for being president depend on whatever agenda persons may have. Just a humble opinion though, from me.
Here are some cases for you to evaluate. In each case specify if the child is a Natural Born Citizen, or not, according to your criteria.
1. Both parents were born in Poland, became US Citizens in 1960 and the child was born, in Detroit in 1965.
2. Both parents were born in Poland, became US Citizens in 1960, and the child was born in Warsaw, Poland in 1965.
3. Both parents were born in Poland, came to the United States on Visas in 1960 and the child was born in Detroit in 1960.
Under current de-facto law I believe that in all three cases the child is considered an NBC. I would agree with this, if that makes me an anti-birther, I accept that description.
Different birthers would have different opinions about these three cases, some accepting NBC status for some, but not others, some rejecting all.
What's your evaluation?
My evaluation doesn’t matter. And apparently the Courts are not gonna make a decision so I’ll defer to the 14th amendment which makes no distinction between born or Naturalized citizens. That’s not what the founders intended but that’s how it was written.
So. Come one! Come all! The land of Milk and Honey beckons! Where even you Pablo, born in a hovel somewhere in Central Mexico can one day be President!
Give me your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses....or something like that.
It isn't a scandal until the MSM, and their "brain trust" at NPR, say it is.
Has much information been published about his Cuban father?
You may be a US citizen. You are not natural born.
I am 68 and yes, that was exactly what my parents always said natural born was. Both of my grandfathers said so also. My family on both sides was in the US before the American Revolution. I am a card carrying CAR member.
All four of my grandparents were in this country before it was the USA.
I agree.
A bold-faced media lie!
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
Under what law am I not natural born. Don't give me that Native Born crap, that is mentioned nowhere in US law.
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.