They explained it to you wrong.
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The courts will not give you the truth, they will give you their opinion. It's not necessarily the same thing, and I can point out to you plenty of examples where the court was absolutely wrong.
They explained it to you wrong.
FYI: Ted Cruz’s father wasn’t a US citizen until 2005.
Cheers!
When I say it isn’t the same, I mean with respect to eligibility for the presidency. I do not mean that McCain and your son are not natural born citizens at birth. They are such by statute.
He was born in a Panamanian hospital on Panama soil.
It doesn’t matter. The precedent has been established and the fires are burning.
I think most don't object to their intent of having the leader of the country be loyal only to us, if that was the reason for the NBC requirement, but today?
We just don't like exclusion, believing instead that everyone is or should considered equal, with equal access to everything, including the presidency, no matter what.
That highest best standard for NBC excludes individuals we know to be loyal Americans and that's not right.
Highest, best standards are exclusionary by nature, and usually for our own good, but we usually take them down sooner or later and often start our ride down the slippery slope that bridges the gap between them and whatever we want, when we want it.
Most of the issues we humans politically fight about are of that quality and I am grateful to the FFs for leaving us with this system where we can argue it out...if we can keep it. Today, we like skiing that slippery slope!
And they are citizens at birth by statute. To be clear, I am not saying that your children are ineligible for the presidency. I believe that children born abroad to those in military service should be eligible.
What I’m saying is that the State Department’s position is that there is no definitive ruling from the courts on whether or not those who obtain citizenship at birth by statute (as opposed to the 14th Amendment) are eligible for the presidency.
I also believe that SCOTUS would rule in favor of your children’s eligibility.
That is so very true.
My take lurking here is that both sides of the debate on this thread are making a case for doing just that. Even if Obama is natural born, his fulfilment of that requirement hasn't protected our nation from the problems of divided (or potentially divided) loyalties in a president.
Is any judge really free to deport Obama's relatives who are in this country unlawfully? Is any bureaucrat really free to cut off their public assistance? Justice should be blind, shouldn't it?
And what about foreign aid packages? Treaties? Are these biased in favor of the different nations in which Obama has held citizenship or where family of origin continues to reside?
Now that we have intimidation of the press by the executive office, are they really free to report on the president's activities related to those nations? They sure didn't cover Obama and Odinga prior to the election!
Dual/Multi citizens may be patriotic and filled with honorable intentions but the nation needs a mechanism to prevent divided loyalties from influencing the highest office in the land. We shouldn't have to rely on whatever the press or the president decides we should know. An amendment related to dual citizenship would be a start but probably not fully address the problem of divided loyalties. Just my two cents. Back to lurking.
At the time of the Revolution the common law of England was “thrown off”..oh sure, some individual states still adhered to it. That was the only law they knew and there was no central government in place yet.
So then the country loosely followed the Articles of Confederation prior to the construction of the Constitution.
Also prior to the Revolution and the Constitution, each state retained it’s own laws on naturalizing citizens. So, basically you were a subject of England but a citizen of a particular colony/state. If you emigrated from a different country and wished to become a citizen, you became a citizen of a state under their own requirements - those varied from state to state. There was no uniform law on naturalization in this country prior to the Constitution.
Being a sovereign nation, our new government looked to international law. On the topic of allegiance English law may have been referenced, but then again so was Roman, as was French. A lot of sorting out had to be done - necessarily - for a full generation after the Constitution. The only time the question of allegiance did not arise was to children born in the US to citizen parentS. A child born to a alien Father, citizen mother may not be able to inherit property through the mother because she took on the nationality of her alien husband at marriage. That had to be addressed so that children of such marriages wouldn’t be disinherited.
BTW, you posted snips, carefully selected snips. Like you left this off;
“The state of the law in the United States is easily
deduced. -The notion that there is any common law
principle to naturalize the children born in foreign
countries, of native-born American father and mother,
father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and
never was any such common law principle.”
That snip asserts that there was NO common law principle or law, prior to all of the Acts that were later passed. The first Act upon this subject was passed in March, 1790. After the Constitution was signed.
That is quite straightforward.
Cruz was born a dual citizen, both American and Canadian. His class of citizenship did not even exist in 1787. Period. I forget what year the Act was passed that gave the U.S. MOTHER the right to pass U.S. citizenship to her child born on foreign land, but prior to that Act it had to be through the Father, and he had to have been a resident of the U.S. Oh, and that child had to declare allegiance at the age of majority. Those Acts don’t make a foreign born US citizen into a natural born citizen, but it gave them the same rights AS a natural born citizen.
And Article ll was NEVER amended. To this day dual citizenship is still not officially recognized in the US.
Yes.
Can they point to any case law?
Yes.
Can they explain the other Presidents (ie NOT Obama) that didn’t meet their Natural Born Citizen criteria?
There is only one, and his failure to meet the requirements was not known until just a few years ago.
It’s strange that all these birthers are experts are the natural born citizen clause, but have nothing to support it in case law or from the writings of the Framers.
It's strange that someone who has obviously not bothered to read what we have pointed out regarding the writings of the framers will pop off an accusation from ignorance. I can give you far more than you will want to read.
If the Framers wanted to ensure that you were born in the United States to two parents of American citizenship why wouldn’t they explicitly put that language in the Constitution.
The only word defined in the Constitution is "Treason." They weren't writing a dictionary. As James Madison said:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
Unless and until you provide a verifiable and historical source for your assertions as well as for the purpose of my perusal, no, I will not.
My point is that Obama is a red flag and he passed the test.
Why beat up Cruz?
Beat on Obama.
“There is NO DIFFERENCE between a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen - they embody the same people...”
Completely false and misleading. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define natural born Citizen, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment like they did in Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. But they didn’t.
CFA was born in Boston. His father (born in Quincy MA) and his mother (born in London) would have become American citizens with the Revolution and independence.
There's a gray area there -- what did happen with the citizenship of Americans who were living abroad through the Revolutionary period? -- but since Louisa Johnson Adams's father became an American consul in London and her uncle signed the Declaration of Independence, I'm going to assume that she became a US citizen by the time the Constitution was ratified.
Needs slight correction:
We lost the last election because of fixated single issue voters many types of confused right of center voters who should have known better than to stay home and allow the most radical, pro-Marxist, pro-muzzie, anti-American, anti-everything we love and cherish president ever to be reelected and continue his efforts to totally destroy America.
Fixed. I'm not saying you were wrong, just needed a broader brush........
:-)
At least Cruz’s father was a citizen.
Obama can’t say that.
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”.
Yes. Children of service members who are born abroad of two US Citizen parents are NOT eligible to be POTUS. (At least that’s what I was told by the US Embassy when my son was born.)
__________________________________________
This is also the problem McCain had...the Senate voted him eligible...
When we were stationed overseas we were told to make sure I returned to the US for the birth of any children or they would not be eligible to be POTUS
even if they were born on base in the US military hospital
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.