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]
BOSTON (AP) — Two legal scholars squared off in a public debate on Friday to settle whether Republican Ted Cruz is eligible to become president. Spoiler alert: They didn't settle it.
But the debate at Harvard Law School underscored that conflicting interpretations of the U.S. Constitution can produce different answers. The question has been in the national spotlight since Republican rival Donald Trump suggested that Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, isn't legally qualified to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at pilotonline.com ...
I read your posting history. It took a while to locate the older NBC threads...Whats changed? What happened? Disillusionment?
I found nothing in your posting history that makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen prior 2013.
Over a long period of time, and digging deeper into Vattel, not primarily with Ted Cruz in mind, but with the travesty of “anchor babies” very much in mind, I came to the conclusion that 19th century jurisprudence often, erroneously and very gratuitously elevated jus soli above jus sanguinis.
The Framers were very vocal about their distaste for English common law, especially those aspects which derive from assuming a unitary sovereign. The concept of a ‘natural born subject’ was one of those things that was held in disfavor by many, perhaps a majority, of the Framers.
The preponderance of the evidence suggests to me that the Framers embraced the ideas of Vattel and there can be no question that Vattel gave primacy to jus sanguinis inheritance of citizenship. It is true that at the time of the Framers, citizenship of wives was taken to be that of the husbands, so it was not necessary for Vattel to specifically mention mothers, only fathers. Vattel very explicitly minimized the importance and indeed the relevance of the country of birth.
There are also other aspects of this analysis that have persuaded me that the term ‘natural born citizen’ is synonymous with ‘citizen by birth’, and importantly, was so at the time of the Framers as well.
I am also convinced that it is within the plenary power of the Congress, acting as the legislative agent of the sovereign, We the People, to set indicia that are to be used to determine - not to grant - this status of citizenship by birth. I find it no different to the plenary power of each state to determine by the acts of their legislatures the indicia by which they will determine who is and who is not a ‘resident’.
Both the term ‘resident’ and ‘natural born citizen’ appear in Article II, Clause 1, Paragraph 5, and both must be equally permitted of statutory clarification.
c. Questions about acquisition of citizenship through naturalization: (1)Passport Agencies and Centers should contact CA/PPT/S/A/AP at AskPPTAdjudication@state.gov.
(2)Consular Officers abroad should contact CA/OCS/L (Ask-OCS-L@state.gov)
Perhaps the "he didn't go through a naturalization process" argument can be shown for the BS it is.
Cruz is not a natural born citizen and is clearly naturalized.
Nice. I’m sure they’ll have some excuse about why it doesn’t matter though.
Yes they modify citizen, because you can be a naturalized citizen who had to apply and immigrate here. As usual Cruz birthers have lots of trouble interpreting basic english language and grammar.
Do not be stunned... It is the mind of Cruz at work....whatever it takes.
Check out the above find...
LOL. Thanks for pointing those out.
Some day, you will understand Cruz is not a natural born US Citizen
“Rubio’s case is much better for NBC than Cruz”
Marco Rubio acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, due to the fact he was born within the jurisdiction of the United States with two parents who were alien citizens of Cuba at the time of his birth; which makes Marco Rubio a naturalized citizen of the U.S. and ineligible to be President.
See Post 351:
Ted Cruz Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3392018/posts?page=351#351
66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization. NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . . (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....â€
The argument shifts to the difference between "at birth" (in the statute) and "after birth" (in FAM), with the summary conclusion being that nobody made citizen by operation of a statute that recites "at birth" is naturalized. The argument also rings of "They are made NBC pursuant to the founders leaving it to Congress to define NBC."
There is an unlimited supply of people hidebound to their conclusion, and it is literally impossible to shift them. Even a SCOTUS ruling against them, with Cruz as a party, would be met with disagreement.
Is the Illinois board of elections beholden to the constitution or can they say pretty much whatever they want?
And that statutory clarification is subject to judicial review.
We observers can award legitimacy to the institution and decision as we see fit. The IL election board didn't address the arguments of the objector, it just adopted Cruz's argument (which also didn't address the argument in the objector's memorandum of law). Cruz's argument is intellectually corrupt and dishonest.
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.