And ... his parents were married, (to EACH OTHER):)
“Character counts! Works for ME!
To me, he’s a Texan and that’s all that matters—LOL!
I used to think many people were just ignorant on this issue. That the number of FReepers especially who insist Ted is not eligible were just uninformed. But this issue has been hashed out for years now. Especially with the Kenyan as president. And so anyone who argues Obama and/or Cruz is not a NBC is a fool and a troll.
Already many trolls here at FR who insist Cruz is not qualified have been zotted for their agitating. I'm sure many more will follow.
There are only two types of citizens: natural born, and naturalized. If Cruz is a citizen, and he was never naturalized, then that logically only leaves one possibility.
Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent -- whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone -- is a U.S. citizen from birthUS statutes condition the granting of citizenship to children born abroad, when the citizenship of parents is mixed. Just saying, the law isn't as cut and dry as the article asserts.
"...natural born citizen..."
After obama, what difference, at this point, does it make?
you’re just saying that to make the paulistas mad at ya!
And his social security card isn’t that of a dead man.
Thank you for that. It was never quite clear during the Obama birth certificate hunt whether there were two types of citzenship, natural born and naturalized, or if there was a third type of citizenship at birth which wasn't natual born for some reason. Since the exact term "natural born" only applied to the requiremnents for president and vice president I had seen no statute which clearly defined it. That 1790 law comes as close as I have seen and makes it pretty clear that natural born and citizen at birth are the same and there are only two types of citizenship.
But, at this point, what differences does it make, who cares and why?
I note that the law uses the plural; it doesn't say "children of a citizen," it says "children of citizens." An ambiguity, no doubt.
The closest contemporary writing to the ratification of the Constitution on the subject of natural born citizens being of two citizen parents is Thomas Paine's 1791 book The Rights of Man, written just two years after ratification.
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law that Congress passed in 1790, it is a window into it's contemporary understanding.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution and a year after the law passed in 1790. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ
amazing how such a simple concept can be twisted
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
every other office defined by the Constitution used the term ‘citizen’ as a requirement. only the office of the president was different, requiring a ‘natural born citizen’.
why?
well, the founders discussed it. they wanted to insure the person that assumed the office wouldn’t have split allegiances, at least by birth. they also wanted to insure the king of england would NEVER be able to be president of the United States.
the second part can be used as a simple logic test helping to verify the first. that being, both parents must be citizens and the child must be born on the soil.
as a test, look at prince william and kate. if they flew to NYC and she gave birth then flew home... their child could be the future king of england. if he moved to the US when he was 20 and ran for president at 34... he would be eligible IF the rules being applied to 0bama, TCruz and others were used. obviously, this is the EXACT scenario the founders wanted to avoid.
of course, TCruz will be promoted as the main candidate for the right. he will (and is) making all the right noises we want to hear. it’s red meat.
the goal for the left would be for TCruz to get the nomination... then disqualify him just after the primaries. this will allow EWarrent to win on a walk in november as the right will be too confused
In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.Where’s the “Not this shit again” guy when you really need him?
With the acceptance of Hussein Obama as president the question is no longer even relevant. Anyone on earth that fulfills the other explicit Constitutional requirements of age and residency is now eligible to run for President and to be President of the United States. Probably those could go by the board if the Democrats come up with a 19 year old DNA Communist who is black, transgendered, and Moslem.
Jay was a diplomat for the Continental Congress when his children were born in France. Jay wrote Washington about natural born citizens because he was concerned his children would be excluded from eligibility because they happened to be born in a foreign country while their father was in diplomatic status. Jay’s children were natural born citizens of the United States because their father was in diplomatic status.
Foreign born children are foreign citizens until they use the US Code to naturalize as a US citizen. Naturalized citizens are eligible to be President of the United States.
It leaves people thinking that "If he's natural born, why do they keep pushing articles trying to convince us? "
Stop it. Just stop it.
“The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
That statement defines what the framers had in mind when they used the term “natural born citizen”:
Specifically, “children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens.” It doesn’t matter if the child was born on the back side of the moon. Now, if both of Cruz’s parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth, then that qualifies him as being a natural born citizen. It is the citizenship of the parents, not the place of birth of the child.
Unfortunately, we will never really say goodbye to birthers. They will not be satisfied by any argument however logical. In fact, they will twist any evidence you present to be proof that they are correct.