He’s also a natural born leader!
What is your position on Rubio and Jindal? I am not saying that you, or any one else, would support them if one of them were to run, but clearly if you apply the history of case law and the constitution that both would eligible as well.
OMG...I’m almost out of popcorn!!
Cruz is.
ODumbo is.
End of story.
Yes, the other thread at 700+ posts had become unwieldy.
were both of his parents citizens of the united states when he was born? Yes or no
Obama set the precedence that it doesn’t matter.
Natural Born Citizen is no longer a Constitutional issue. Precedent has made it irrelevant.
Hypocrisy is what will plague a Cruz run for President. Many “birthers” painted conservatives into a box on the issue. Cruz will constantly be hounded to denounce those conservatives. It could become a distraction, an opportunity at ridicule. The mistake was in how the birthers mishandled the situation. Next time ask questions, create doubt. But don’t make accusations.
the naturalization act of 1790 was repealed
-PJ
ROFLMAO
come on. it’s not that complicated, is it?
you’re a natural born citizen if there are no alternatives.
cruz was born with the ability to be a US and/or canadian citizen (maybe even british). similar to 0bama, who if born in HI would have been a US citizen and a british citizen.
why was the clause written in by the founders? they stated why... it’s no secret.
their intention was to insure the president would not have split allegiances, at least by birth
it’s an extremely simplistic requirement... and the only single point of failure in the Constitution (IOW, if not obeyed, the Constitution would be in breech... which it is now)
Inferences will not prevail in the face of the determination to stop Cruz by the liberal elite and their house organs of the Leviathan state. Nor will the fact that the fraud in the Oval Office and "Chet" Arthur were not natural born citizens under the definitions used at the time in the area of citizenship. Both Marshall and Story opined from the bench in reported cases that the law of nations was what was looked to on the issue of citizenship. There is extrinsic evidence that supports the latter view from the time, such as the well known letter to Washington from Jay and no extrinsic evidence that the common law of England was behind the phrase. Likelihoods and surmises won't cut it. The word "citizen" was associated with the rise of republicanism as against monarchism and was not believed to be equivalent to "subject" but was considered quite different, since citizens were held to be sovereign in the ideology of republicanism. The early statute to which you refer was repealed and the repeal was accompanied by a recogition that it likely violated the Constitution and so needed to be repealed.
The hypocrisy involved will not stop the attacks on Cruz. The worshippers of the State don't give a hoot about hypocrisy. Nor did the ducking and giving of a free pass to the fraud in the Oval Office because he was half-black create "precedent." Avoidance does not establish a precedent. The closest precedent is Minor v. Happersett Waite carried weight as a jurist. The 14th Amendment cases such as WKA don't really apply and it clear from comments by the principal sponsor of the 14th Amendment in Congress that it was not intended to displace the law of nations derived definition. You fool yourself if you think that statist jurists will give Cruz the same free pass that they gave the great pretender in the Oval Office. The great pretender's foreign policy and warmaking are peeling away the sympathy for anything and everything he says and does that has ruled until now. The fear of Cruz' fearless constitutionalism ironically, will outweigh the backward-looking desire to protect the fraud at any cost as far as the members of the governing liberal elite are concerned. In their minds ideological status overrules the rule of law properly understood.
Madison commented in his presidency that children born to citizens (citizen father automatically bestowed citizenship to the mother via marriage in that era) at sea or temporarily abroad were to be considered ‘natural born’.
The idea is that American citizens maintain a ‘domicile’ on US or US controlled/possessed soil and are able to maintain a ‘residence’ abroad. For purposes of immigration, ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ are legally distinct terms.
It is clear the fact that Cruz was born in Canada does not render him ineligible to be president because his mother was there for work, not for immigration to Canada. In other words, her domicile was in the USA while her residence was temporarily in Canada.
Where Ted Cruz gets hung in this is that it was not his father who was an American citizen at the time of his birth nor was his father automatically bestowed with citizenship via marriage to his citizen mother.
What is needed is a law with retroactive and prospective provisions that clearly address the distinction of ‘natural born’ versus ‘citizen by birth’.
It was John Jay’s letter to General George Washington that requested a higher bar for the presidency when the Constitution was being drafted and resulted in ‘natural born’ meaning ‘second generation’ as a requirement for the presidency.
John Jay was clearly concerned that a President as Commander-in-Chief must be loyal and have allegiance to the United States because a person with divided loyalties and muddled allegiance would have command of the Army and hence would be in a position to become a tyrant.
I am persuaded that Barack Obama has divided loyalties and muddled allegiance to the United States.
But with Cruz, it is clear he is American through and through in spirit, loyalty and allegiance.
Cruz is a natural born citizen if Obama guard dog Fx News decides that he is a natural born citizen. (sarcasm, but probably what we can expect)
Sten says it best :
‘you’re a natural born citizen if there are no alternatives.’
Obumbo - can be British, or Kenyan, or USA
Cruz - can be Cuban, Canadian, USA
Jindal - can be Indian, USA
etc etc.
Almost all USA presidents, except Chester Arthur, had/have no alternatives - they were/are citizens of USA only, they were born in USA to USA citizen parents, they were/are natural born citizens.
Look at obumbo’s own account of his citizenship (he has lots of alternatives)-
first he claimed to be Kenyan, then he claimed to be USA.
Anyway, he admits to the whole world that he was born to a British citizen (later Kenyan) father. If you go by the British laws on citizenship - any child born to a British subject father anywhere in the world is a natural born citizen of Britain! So obumbo is a natural born citizen of Britain; NOT a natural born citizen of USA!
USA citizenship laws are different from those of the Brits (why do you think they split from Britain?)
A natural born citizen of USA cannot be also a Natural born citizen of Britain!
And the children of citizen of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
Citizens is plural. The Constitution stated that only a natural born citizen could be President, in order to prevent any possibility of divided loyalty.
That said, there is some possible support in what the judges said in Calvin's Case for the idea that a person born abroad of parents who were a) British subjects, and b) in the service of the King (e.g, Ambassadors, soldiers on assignment, etc.) would be subjects born (subjects by nature) and not subjects made (subjects by law or political decree.) But you can't use any Act of Parliament to prove that.
It is important to note that the British term "natural born subject" is not any sort of analog for the American term "natural born citizen." Instead, the correct analogies are that "natural born subject" = "citizen," "subject made" = "naturalized citizen" and "subject born" = "natural born citizen." Again, as I concluslive demonstrated in the my essay (referenced above.)
But what matters is that the Founders consciously rejected not just British common law in general, but British notions of citizenship specifically. That also is fully documented in my essay.
Finally, consider this excerpt from my essay:
In addition to the debates at the Constitutional Convention, John Jay's letter to General Washington, and the text of the Constitution itself, there is also the testimony of Founder and historian David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815,) who was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.In 1789 (the year after the Constitution was ratified,) Dr. Ramsay published an essay entitled "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen," a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.” In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Based on Dr. Ramsay's definition of "natural born citizen," there can be no doubt why it was necessary to include the time-limited Constitutional exception that permitted those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted to be President. Without that exception, those who would have qualified as natural born citizens, and so been Constitutionally eligible to be President, would have been no older than 12 years of age in 1788.
Given Dr. Ramsay's position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents.
Blood or Soil
Citizenship at Birth = Natural Born Citizenship
Thanks for posting this. It saved me from having to compose a thread of my own.
So you are saying that since Cruz’s father was a US citizen at the time of his birth in Canada, Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen. (based on the underlined section from Black’s)
Seems plausible, but may need a bit of fact checking.
What if Cruz was born in Canada to a British father? Would that make him British?
What if Cruz was born in Canada to a Canadian father, would he then be Canadian Natural born or Cuban Natural Born?
Regarding the Naturalization Act of 1790, this was rewritten by the next Congress with the granting of "natural-born citizen" status to those born of US Citizen parents abroad stricken out. This was undoubtedly because of the realization that a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship exists from the moment of their birth, without the benefit of any Act or Amendment.