Posted on 02/06/2016 1:47:14 AM PST by RC one
Edited on 02/06/2016 5:34:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
No I do not, because that is not a historical fact. What you are doing is taking a certain class of individuals who are without question natural born citizens and making that class exclusive, when it never was. The truth is that there has always been controversy about who is and who is not a natural born citizen, because there was no single standard, even at the time the Constitution was framed.
This is a can that has been kicked down the road for over 200 years.
There are a range of indicia that can and have been used to determine whether or not the individual in question can be considered a natural born citizen, including, but not limited to the citizenship of the parent(s) and the place of birth. The common law of England emphasized the place of birth, but that view was generally rejected by the framers, despite English common law still governing in many of the States. The 'Law of Nations' emphasized the citizenship of the parent(s), for as Vattel said, the condition of the children is bequeathed to them by their parents. To quote Vattel: "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
There is no valid historical justification for amalgamating these two concepts, despite much confused and contradictory case law and dicta.
It is quite clear which indicia the Framers preferred.
Further, it is well within the sovereign right of We the People acting through our legislative representatives in Congress, to define the indicia we choose for the purpose of determining - not granting, and not redefining - those considered holding natural born citizenship.
This is nothing at all different to the way we set standards and indicia to be used for the purpose of determining who is and who is not a 'resident' of a particular State. This is done by statute and these statutes are subject to change and States are not held to enforce the indicia used in 1787.
And, Congress has indeed defined the indicia to be used to determine those who are considered to be citizens by birth, aka natural born citizens in 8 US Code 1401. Open and shut. Case closed.
Don’t bother wasting everyone’s time, including yours and mine, by lecturing me on the obvious and already well understood Constitutional provisions.
you seem like you’re a little testy.
All statute law is subservient to, and (should be) reliant upon the Constitution. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is without force, and is invalid on its face.
You quote Vattel, yet curiously don’t seem to follow his reasoning that the child’s citizenship derives from their father’s.
Even if you only accept that one excerpt, you then concede that Ted Cruz is not eligible, due to his father’s citizenship at his birth.
The founders (and many who followed them, including SCOTUS, see Kawakita) saw two potential pitfalls. One is that the president might have affection for his home country (be that by birth or upbringing), the other being that his home country has, in fact, a bona fide claim on the person.
Dual citizenship carries a potential for trouble and mischief.
Your point of view is that naturalized citizens should be allowed to assume the presidency. That is a popular point of view. It has been advanced in Congress several times.
Rubio is not even a citizen.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.Articles of Confederation
Imagine what happens if he becomes President.
Please note that this opinion, like all of the opinions that support Cruz et al, is written long after the adoption of the Constitution and therefore holds little sway.
Both valid points
Cruz was four years old when his family moved to America...I don't think four year old have developed an affection for their country of birth...Cruz has been here for 40 years, a Texan, Texas Solicitor General, and Senator.
Cruz dropped his dual citizenship so Canada would have no claim on him...
The potential pitfalls should be taken in context on who is running and why...
As an example:
I see far more dangerous pitfalls in a Hillary / Sanders Presidential victory than any pitfall that might be made against Cruz or Rubio...
My suspicion is the whole Cruz birther issue on FR is more of trying to knock out a potential Trump challenger than any REAL concern about where his loyalties lie...
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems almost all of the posters pushing this issue are ardent Trump supporters..
Oath of office (Senate)
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Should he resign?
My suspicion is that a whole bunch of freepers bought into Cruz's churchy BS and sent him money and now they don't want to admit that they were suckers throwing good money down the drain so they have convinced themselves that it's OK to support him despite his ineligibility and we're all supposed to just go along with it.
I wouldn't be supporting Trump either if he wasn't a NBC btw.
he is not constitutionally prohibited from holding his senate seat. He sure as heck is subverting the constitution by running for President though.
If loyalty is to be the test, then those naturalized citizens who made a choice, as adults, to become US citizens are superior to those who are natural born.
How condescending of you...
I bought into Cruz as well as many other conservative FReepers, because he is a constitutional conservative...unlike Trump.
The churchy BS (as you say) just happens to be a plus...
It concerns me that Trump does not seem to have a personal moral compass...bedding women who aren't his wife, married three times, etc...
This baloney endures because we allow it. You're quite right. Congress can pass laws regarding naturalization. They cannot create a naturally born citizen which is the requirement.
It concerns me that some of us think that a man who is clearly subverting the constitution is in any way a constitutional conservative.
Hey. Here’s a grand idea.
How did the FOUNDERS define it?
Hint: Naturalization Act of 1790.
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.