Skip to comments.Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
Since Cruz is Hispanic, those who question anything regarding him should be assumed to be racist. It’s the insulation president Stoner enjoys.
If you start adding amendments every time the loony left redefines a term, you would have hundreds of amendments and adding amendments would never stop.
NBC was specific in it’s meaning at the time and clearly the FF didn’t want anyone with dual loyalties running the country much less having a president that could claim the throne of another country because of birth right.
We don’t need an amendment, we just need people with the courage to say a dual citizen is not eligible for president.
If Cruz isn’t eligible because he is a dual citizen, then clearly Zippo isn’t eligible because he is a dual citizen.
Letting the left tie themselves into knots trying to explain why Zippo is eligible but Cruz isn’t may be trap that has been set.
And a natural born Canadian Citizen. And a Natural born Cuban citizen. So if Canada goes to war with the United States, which side does he fight on?
If Cuba decides to draft him, can they make him fight us?
No, this won't cause any problems at all.
They are good citizens. After looking at our current administration, they wouldn’t take job if it were offered.
What is this false information which you keep promoting? (That there were OTHER Presidents without American Parents.)
There was only ONE, and we didn't discover this about him until just a few years ago. During his life, he made great efforts to cover it up.
I said specifically that dual citizenship is not OFFICIALLY recognized.
You left off the word “OFFICIALLY.” What is meant by that is dual citizenship is not legal in the US because it is not in our laws as an officially recognized citizenship status.
That snip you posted backs this up:
“Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a status long recognized in the law
Long recognized in international law. Not so specifically in US nationality laws.
Dual citizenship gives a person rights of nationality in more than one country. *Dual allegiance* ( as in obamas’ case), permitting a foreigner to the Presidency was what John Jay warned against, and why the original wording of the qualifications to be President were changed to what they are now and have never been amended since being signed.
To a greater degree in Canada than in the US - due to laxer immigration protocols, Communist sympathizing government since trudope and greater proportion of foreign born folks as a percentage of the population.
Saying it loudly doesn't make it any less stupid. The voters don't get to decide what is "Arms", nor do they get to decide what is "speech."
The meaning of terms of art are not subject to voter approval.
I agree, and I hope he stays away from you lot.
Vattel’s Law of Nations is not United States Law, which I quote.
The reason Barry Goldwater was eligible to be President is that the Arizona Territory, in which he was born, was an incorporated territory, and expected to fully become part of the United States. (There was a major fight within the Republican Party over this issue. Gov.George Romney was born in Mexico with citizenship derived from his U.S. citizen parents but he was not an NBC. His son made it a point to emphasize his eligibility in 2012.)
The Panama Canal Zone, from the very beginning, was an unincorporated territory (same goes for Puerto Rico and Guam). We leased the land containing the Canal Zone from Panama - they never signed away national sovereignty to that land. Today it is completely Panamanian.
People born in The Panama Canal Zone, like those of Puerto Rico and Guam, are recognized as statutory U.S. citizens courtesy of the U.S.Congress, but they are not Natural born Citizens.
(See Wikipedia for details.)
Because Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, if they migrate to the U.S. mainland, any children born within the United States proper, I believe, are considered Natural born Citizens but not those born on the island of Puerto Rico.
Hey! I don’t make the laws! I’m just reporting what I’ve found.
Incidently, Sen.John S. McCain accepted over $100,000 in donations from George Soros during the 2008 election.
Vattel was also mentioned specifically in some of the Constitutional Ratifying conventions in the various state legislatures. I’ll look up some references if you want.
I am fully able to provide VERIFIABLE AND HISTORICAL SOURCES for my assertions, which are as follows:
1. The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...
2. The "law of nations" was a general topic of law, and there were a number of writers on the subject besides Vattel.
3. A different writer wrote a book in which he included a chapter entitled, "Of Offences Against the Law of Nations."
4. Vattel does not mention either "Piracies" or "Felonies" in his work on the law of nations. He does not use the word "Felon" at all, and mentions "Pirates" only once in his entire book.The other author that I refer to speaks of "felons" and "felonies" 5 times, and has a discussion of Piracy in which he uses the terms "Piracy," "pirate," "piratical," some 15 times.
5. The other writer was extremely well known, not only to a few people, but to all lawyers in early America, and he was quoted by the Founding Fathers SIXTEEN TIMES more often than they quoted Vattel.
6. I can show you where the notably thrifty Founders spent precious public funds to purchase that author's work for use in the Senate.
Now, if I can provide a verifiable and historical source for every single one of the above six points, wouldn't you agree that the author I refer to, rather than Vattel, was most likely the source of the phrase used in our Constitution? Why wouldn't you? It only makes sense.
Being ‘naturalized’ is not the same as being ‘natural born’.
One of the reasons this was a problem is that, until about 25 years ago, children born of service members were considered DUAL citizens of the US and the host nation.
THAT made them not ‘natural born’. You cannot be ‘natural born’ and also hold dual citizenship with another nation.
It was changed (I think sometime in the 80’s) to make children of service members full US citizens without the dual citizenship of the host nation.
People need to think about that. This is a relatively recent change.
How could someone be a dual citizen and a natural born citizen?
The fact is that nobody really knows the intended definition of ‘natural born’. But it sure as hell doesn’t include children who can be considered dual citizens of another nation. (Does the fact that this was changed change the status of these children? Perhaps.)
Do I think it’s fair that the children of our most dedicated citizens are exempt from the highest office due to a circumstance of their birth? Absolutely. But life is not fair. Until there is a WRITTEN definition of natural born citizen added to the Constitution, I think we’re all going to have to deal with murky situations.
John McCain WAS born on the base. It is the people who keep saying he wasn't that are keeping false rumors alive.
If you'll make that your entire campaign platform, I'll raise money for you by knocking on one door after another from the day you officially declare until the polls close in Hawaii on election night. I'll do the "Forest Gump runs across the country twice" thang if you'll put those thugs in prison where they belong. (You know, after we give them a speedy and fair trial and they are convicted for treason and fraud.)
Oh... I can also show that the other writer uses the term “high seas” multiple times in his chapter on Offences Against the Law of Nations, whereas Vattel NEVER uses that term in his book.
So we have an author who has a chapter entitled virtually identically to the Constitution.
He is quoted sixteen times more often by the Founding Fathers than Vattel. And he uses ALL of the words “piracy,” “felony,” and “high seas,” not one of which are ever used by Vattel in his book.
“Mccain.was not born on a base.”
LOL! Got it after the first ten or so corrections!
(wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.... wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I’m wrong... so wrong... I’m sorry... I’m wrong.)
Got bad information five years ago and didn’t know I was wrong until now.
No he wasn't. He was born on base. This is a false rumor spurred by the creation of a fake John McCain birth certificate which showed him to have been born in Colon Panama. That is a FAKE document.
That is correct.
And they never, EVER said that if she HADN'T been born to parents who were citizens, she would not have been a natural born citizen.
I disagree. As you keep proffering a demonstrably wrong interpretation, you have NOT read enough to give an authoritative opinion. You are just expressing the popular fallacy.
This is just another way of saying our system is broken. Well duh.
yep, and i dont think senate resolutions trump the Constitution.
Not at all. We believe the nation is full of idiots, and the current status quo, as well as your presence, supports this conclusion.
Here, read some George Will and learn something.
Well according even to the birthers, Chester A Arthur doesn’t fit your requirements.
Free Republic seems to have a lot of constitutional scholars who never studied constitutional law. Every Con Law Professor I’ve asked regarding this birther issue has found it to be completely preposterous.
Additionally, Mark Levin, one of the only national pundits who has a strong knowledge of the Constitution, also believes Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally eligible.
Correction. We have a lot. You just don't like it because it contradicts your own personal preference.
It all began when people started twisting the Constitution because they didn't like Obama. Unfortunately, that was tolerated.
You use the word "tolerated" as applied to freedom of speech and you have the nerve to tell *US* what is the meaning of Constitutional terms? You are a piece of work.
Well, actually you have not pointed to any case law. Even Scalia and Thomas, who are the strongest originalist on the Court, would disregard your definition of “natural born citizen.”
It’s fine. You guys dislike Obama so much, you think by raising this point with Cruz and Rubio, that you will somehow bring about the end of Obama’s Presidency. It’s not going to happen. Even if he was found to be ineligible, the Supreme Court would never make a ruling that would overturn 4 plus years of laws/regulations.
And what kind of conservative are you to think that the Supreme court is the Final word on anything? Do you support Abortion?
Tell me if you think the Supreme court ought to be the final word on that!
Jeff - just post the “writers” name. Why are you playing keep a way with the authors name?
So should we pick and chose what parts of our founding document to enforce based on which ones you like? Tell us please, the whole world is waiting with baited breath to hear of which parts you approve and disapprove.
To your point that dual citizenship is not legal in the U.S., however, the U.S. policy on dual citizenship stipulated in the State Department's Foreign Affairs manual indicates that dual citizenship is recognized (e.g. not illegal) but not encouraged.
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesnt mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).
Death by peaceful invasion, same as here, what a shame.
The problem isn’t birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship has been in place a long time. The problem isn’t even immigration levels - soon the US will be constrained not by quotas, but by desire of folks to immigrate here.
The problem is welfare. Prior to welfare, birthright citizenship wasn’t a problem. Now, it is because it qualifies you for free bennies.
I’d be happy if he runs the DOJ or DHS. Lots of sex pervs, global marxists and fascists would lose their jobs. I would feel safer from Islam’s and communism’s terrorism on the constitution and homeland. : )
Do you haul garbage for a living? I would be surprised if anyone trusted you with doing anything that actually required knowledge or skills.
Those judges of which you speak, said that black people were property. Were they correct back then, or were they wrong back then?
Were the judges right or wrong? Tell me please! I really want to know if Judges are always right!
“Since there was no ius soli in 1855 that means that all people born to American Fathers were de factorequired to have two US citizen parents...”
Wrong. As made clear in the extensive quotes in WKA, there had NEVER been a requirement for two citizen parents for anyone born in the USA.
“In any case, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, your citizenship was inherited solely from your father...”
This is a total false statement. It has no connection with reality. The 1844 case of Lynch discussed the US idea of citizenship at length. It concluded that someone born within the USA, of two alien parents, was undoubtedly a natural born citizen:
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
In 1795: “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States . Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
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, BLACKSTONES COMMENTARIES (1803)
The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
I could go on. There is no doubt that the USA has always followed birth within the country as the primary means of being born a citizen, without regard for the citizenship of the father. The father’s citizenship only mattered in certain areas pertaining to international law, such as born on the high seas, or those born in disputed territories.
You are simply totally wrong about the facts.
Are you saying that the wrinkled, aged document that we all saw right here on FreeRepublic, recording the facts of the birth of John McCain is as phony as....well...Obama's?
You may not get this, but nobody bothers to read crap when it is posted the way you post it. I didn't read your message, and i'm not going to read your message.
If you want someone to read your message, post it in small enough pieces that people won't just skip the entire thing as I just did.
So condescending for the one pushing the unsupported position. You have the burden of proof. You have contrived a definition of “natural born citizen” that has no contextual support.
The legal professors who have studied this subject have also never found any support for this definition requiring you to born in the United States to two US citizens.
We’re all upset Barack Obama has two Presidential elections. However, pushing your unsubstantiated definition of “natural born citizen” does not really help the cause.
Pray tell, what definitions ARE found in the constitution?
Save your breath.
What is at issue is who is qualified to lead this nation.
Ted Cruz certainly has the right stuff.
The graphic that you present on citizenship is simply wrong. Here is an accurate one:
This is the historical understanding of natural born citizenship. It is the understanding of the US Supreme Court and all lower courts. It is the understanding of the legal profession, of all major conservative legal and Constitutional authorities, and of every other credible legal authority, not only now, but throughout American history.
Wait, wait wait. You do realize that the Framers of the Constitution, also didn’t consider blacks to be citizens either. You can’t mock the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, while pushing your definition of “natural born citizen” supposedly from the Framers of the Constitution.
No my FRiend, it is you who has no idea of what youre talking about.
It goes on to define what, exactly, is considered U.S. soil. It gets so specific that it defines when birth on a military vessel is considered birth on U.S. soil. (BTW: international waters = no.)
Again, I read that entire document and this is addressing U.S. citizenship of the children of non-U.S. citizens born on U.S facilities or for that matter in international waters, on U.S. owned vessels, etc. and not those of U.S. citizens living or serving in the military or in the diplomatic service abroad. Read the links I provided in my previous posts about U.S. citizenship of the children of U.S. citizen parents living or serving abroad and get back to me.
Yes, Axs children are citizens at birth. No one is disputing that. According to the State Dept., that does not, however, automatically grant them eligibility under the Constitution for the presidency. The courts have not ruled on the eligibility of those granted citizenship at birth by statute.
There are only two types of citizens as defined in the U.S. Constitution and by the 14th Amendment: those who were born here (natural born citizens) and those who became citizens through naturalization. Since Axs children were citizens at and from birth and not merely by statute or later by naturalization and most importantly given that both their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their births and that he was serving abroad as an active duty member in good standing of the U.S. military and that those children did not have to be naturalized or apply for citizenship at a later date, they are NBCs and have all the rights granted to them under the Constitution including eligibility to run and be elected POTUS as if they had been born in the 50 contiguous United States. They, being born to a U.S. military member, a U.S. born citizen AND his U.S. born citizen wife are unquestionably just as much U.S. citizens by birth, NBCs as you or I, and Im sure many members of the military serving overseas find it insulting that you imply otherwise.
If what you claim was really true; that the children born of U.S. citizen military service members or those of U.S. diplomats and their U.S. citizen spouses while they were honorably serving our country overseas, are not U.S. citizens with ALL the rights that would be otherwise granted to them had they been born while their parents were serving in the very same capacity states side, how many military service members or diplomats would be willing to take very important overseas assignments overseas if that meant that their children born during their overseas assignments would have some sort of second class citizenship?
Are you trying to say that Axs children are second class citizens or lesser citizens than you or I just because he, a U.S. born citizen and his U.S. born citizen wife, scarified living in the U.S. for some years in order to serve his country as he was ordered by the U.S. military to do so?
It was never concretely defined. However, all the legal research done on the topic seems to contradict your interpretation.
The Court would never take your narrow view of the “natural born citizen” especially when there’s no contextual support.
No, that is not at all what I am saying. If the Supreme Court took the case they almost certainly would rule that Cruz is eligible. Neither the legislature or the judicial branch are going to rule Cruz ineligible. I simply agreed the Supreme Court wouldn't likely take the case unless some lower court ruled against Cruz (which I doubt would happen).
You might find these articles of interest.
I know you disagree. But since your opinion (which is all that it is) goes against virtually every authority throughout the entirety of United States history, including people who were close to the Founding Fathers, such as William Rawle, your opinion just doesn't count for very much.
My point being that if there is no law on the books expressly permitting it under our US naturalization laws, it is not “legal” in the sense of being covered by specific US law.
It is “recognized” in the sense that it is “tolerated”. Why has it never been officially adopted as an “official citizenship” status? Lots of new laws dealing with lots of other countries would ensue. Talk about a nightmare!
This way the US can just look the other way if you are in the “other” country you have allegiance to and that country lays claim to you.
The old: “ Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas”, problem shows up and the US may just wash it’s hands of you. If dual citizenship were officially law, the US would/could be obligated to go to bat for you no matter the situation, costs, time and effort involved.
Additionally, Mark Levin, one of the only national pundits who has a strong knowledge of the Constitution, also believes Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally eligible.
Yes, and as I've noted elsewhere, Mark Levin is a rock-solid conservative who lives and breathes the Constitution.
The real ticking time bomb is countries that aren’t friends of the US sponsoring it’s loyal citizens to come here and have a kid making that kid an American citizen.
The parent and child then return to their home country where the child is raised as a loyal citizen to that country and trained as a soldier and an enemy to the US.
At 18yo that child then comes to the US as a citizen and brings that America hating training with them, and there is nothing we can do to stop them.
You can end up with thousands of fanatical foreign soldiers in this country ready to wage a civil war.
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.