Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity - Sen Ted Cruz is natural Born Citizen!!!

Posted on 03/06/2013 1:26:12 PM PST by Perdogg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 next last
To: Perdogg

And his father held citizenship in which nation at the time of Sen. Cruz’ birth?


51 posted on 03/06/2013 3:47:40 PM PST by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David
The question of citizenship at birth turns on the citizenship statute in effect at the time he was born.

We're right back to where we were years ago...what statute are you talking about? Are you talking about a statute from USC 8?

And isn't Congress' authority only related to establishing a uniform rule of naturalization?

So how can a statute written after the Constitution was written have a higher standing than the Constitution?

52 posted on 03/06/2013 3:50:38 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: David
Re: Cruz's mother:

Eleanor Darragh, Cruz’s mother, was a working-class Delaware native who studied math at Rice University. Cruz once told a tea party group that his mother refused to learn how to type, so that when men asked her to type things up for her she could say, “I would love to help you out, but I don’t know how to type. I guess you’re going to have to use me as a computer programmer instead.”

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/who-is-ted-cruz/2012/08/01/gJQAqql8OX_blog.html

53 posted on 03/06/2013 3:55:02 PM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: randita

Don’t forget the birther theory that mothers under a certain age can’t pass on citizenship, even if their kids are born in the US.


54 posted on 03/06/2013 4:03:40 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange

“The birthers will disagree.”

Their accomplishments?


55 posted on 03/06/2013 4:17:38 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: randita

My info is that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta Canada and his father at the time was a Cuban citizen who fought for the Castro revolution but later turned against Castro and only his mother was a USA citizen. A very fascinating family history but as I see it, as a plain USA born citizen with/from non-naturalized parents at birth, Cruz is less eligible to be POTUSA than I am even though I served overseas in WWII.


56 posted on 03/06/2013 4:43:41 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Perdogg; LucyT; MestaMachine; C. Edmund Wright; randita; cripplecreek; allmendream; ...
"The question of citizenship at birth turns on the citizenship statute in effect at the time he was born."

We're right back to where we were years ago...what statute are you talking about? Are you talking about a statute from USC 8?

And isn't Congress' authority only related to establishing a uniform rule of naturalization?

So how can a statute written after the Constitution was written have a higher standing than the Constitution?

In inverse order: It can't (have higher standing than the Constitution); I haven't researched the question but as far as I know and certainly as far as the Constitution goes, it (the authority of Congress is limited to naturalization) is.

That is what I thought I said.

If what you are asking is how he gets to be a citizen at birth without being under the naturalization power, the answer is I don't know; I haven't looked at international law and other authorities on the question and probably should; but I don't see that he does.

But--there is no reason Congress can't exercise its naturalization power to make a person a naturalized citizen at birth either; and I would see that as what the citizenship statutes do.

So if you thought he got in under a citizenship statute at birth, he became a citizen at birth--it is just that he is a naturalized citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.

If that reasoning is sound, and it may not be correct, it is the answer to the Natural Born question as far as person's born outside the US.

Frankly, I think that casts doubt also on the ancient historical question as to Goldwater--how does Goldwater get to be Natural Born?

57 posted on 03/06/2013 4:52:23 PM PST by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Don’t forget the birther theory that mothers under a certain age can’t pass on citizenship, even if their kids are born in the US.

You cite yet another variant. The mother could be a Daughter of the American Revolution, but if the father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth or if the child wasn't born in one of the 57 U.S. states, "no eligibility for you".

58 posted on 03/06/2013 5:01:17 PM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: David

There is a difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen. A naturalized citizen can be created by statute, but a natural born citizen is only such by circumstance.


59 posted on 03/06/2013 5:13:14 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
So many Freepers so happy to destroy the Constitution.

Oh goody: Our next usurper is on the way.

Revealed: How immigrants are gaining U.S. citizenship by getting married on Skype - to people thousands of miles away

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289177/Revealed-How-immigrants-using-Skype-weddings-gain-U-S-citizenship--saying-I-thousands-miles-away.html

Online global unions via webcam are the first step to attaining a visa or citizenship for a non-American spouse

Many fear that such proxy weddings will help facilitate marriage fraud, as well as see an increase in the number of sex trafficking victims

A rise in Skype weddings is allowing immigrants to legally gain American citizenship by exchanging vows from opposite ends of the globe, it was revealed today.

60 posted on 03/06/2013 5:18:19 PM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

I do believe the birther theory on that, which they questioned with Obama, was if the only American parent were underage and the child had been born abroad, according to the law at that time.


61 posted on 03/06/2013 5:21:31 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: David; Perdogg; LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; justiceseeker93
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970. His father, Rafael, born about 1940, tells of battling the oppressive Batista regime in Cuba as a teenager, being incarcerated and beaten, then coming to the Austin in 1957 on a student visa. He got a job as a dishwasher for 50 cents an hour, learned Engliash and graduated from the University of Texas with a degreee in math, then went to work at an oil exploration software company, where he met Eleanor Darragh who'd become his second wife and Ted's mother (he already had two daughters).

Eleanor was born about 1935 in Wilmington, DE to Elizabeth E. Cekine & Edward John Darragh, Jr, both natives of Delaware. Elizabeth's parents were Mary Lonergan of Ireland and Dominic Cekine of Italy. Edward's parents were Ella F. Haggerty and Edward John Darragh both natives of Pennsylvania.

Eleanor applied to Rice University after her family moved to Houston, getting a math degree in 1956 and went to work as a computer programmer at Shell Oil. The parents of Ted separated in 1974 and Rafael returned to Houston. Eleanor returned six months later. They divorced in February 1997 in Houston. Rafael became a U.S. Citizen in 2005.


62 posted on 03/06/2013 5:23:36 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Do you really believe that you know more about this subject than David?


63 posted on 03/06/2013 5:25:09 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

The problem was that many seemed to only read the age requirement and not the larger section in which it was contained, referring to births abroad, and came to the conclusion that it applied to babies born in the US as well.


64 posted on 03/06/2013 5:36:28 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

C’mon, you know if he runs the Left will suddenly discover the “natural born” clause and raise a humongeous stink and sue if he wins (with John Roberts likely casting the fifth vote to toss him).


The Dems won’t make a peep on this issue until he wins the GOP primary and then they will cut him off at the knees with it.


65 posted on 03/06/2013 6:32:41 PM PST by aviator (Armored Pest Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

McCain was never eligible, he’s foreign born, period. Resolution 511 anyone? Why was it necessary for the “eligible” McCain? Look it up. The elites could care less about NBC the Constitution and the Rule of Law.


66 posted on 03/06/2013 6:40:33 PM PST by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: randita

Another one who missed basic middle school civics class, where all Americans are taught one must be born on U.S. soil to be a natural born citizen the requirement for President. This isn’t that difficult.


67 posted on 03/06/2013 6:45:46 PM PST by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: David
But--there is no reason Congress can't exercise its naturalization power to make a person a naturalized citizen at birth either; and I would see that as what the citizenship statutes do.
Let me see if I can put this another way...

We are each born male or female, right? This is a "State of Nature", something that simply is. (I won't get into anomalies such as hermaphrodites as this is a basic example)

Now, Congress can come along and pass a statute that says a person's gender is to be decided by that person upon reaching their maturity. A man can call himself a woman, but his "State of Nature" is that he is a man.
A man will always be a man and a woman will always be a woman. If you've got the right parts an intelligent human knows what gender you are and Congress can never pass a law that can dispute natural law. A tree is a tree, not a bush, and one simply can't be the other by natural law.

A natural born citizen exists in a "State of Nature" and no statute can grant such a thing.

It's not that complicated of a concept! How you don't grasp it is beyond me!

68 posted on 03/06/2013 6:52:39 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: David; Brown Deer

See brown deer’s post #62, it has Cruz’s birth date but lists no marriage date for his parents.

Brown deer, do you have Cruz’s parents marriage date?


69 posted on 03/06/2013 7:08:48 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
As to defining what is “natural born” - Vattel in 212 is more accurately translated as “indigenous or natives”.

According to what source is this "more accurately translated"?? And second, it's a pointless argument since the Supreme Court unanimoulsy substituted the term "natural-born citizen" to characterize the same birth criteria as 212 - all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

There is nothing in the original French that could be accurately translated to “natural born” which was the common term in English law for one born a citizen.

In 1781, the founders translated the french term "naturel" as "natural-born" ... Naturel is the same term used by Vattel that you said was more accurately translated the other way. And why did the later editions of Law of Nations change the translation to "natural-born citizen"?? If it was more accurately translated as "indigenous or natives," shouldn't that have been the later translation??

70 posted on 03/06/2013 7:30:21 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57; David

Rafael Bienvenido Cruz was first married to Julia Anne Garza. They had two daughters, Miriam Ceferina Cruz born on Nov 22, 1961 in Austin and Roxana Lourdes Cruz born on Nov 18, 1962 in Dallas.

I am not sure when he divorced Julia and married Eleanor, but those two events probably occurred sometime between 1962 and 1970. Eleanor and Rafael were divorced on Feb 13, 1997 in Houston.


71 posted on 03/06/2013 7:36:00 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
According to English law birth place was not the primary consideration

Actually, that's not true. Under common law the primary consideration was indeed place of birth.

BTW, the Irish guy you mention was the Duke of Wellington.

72 posted on 03/06/2013 8:03:59 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

In this case, given what David wrote that I was referring to, yes—as do many Freepers.


73 posted on 03/06/2013 8:09:43 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

I doubt you have the credentials.


74 posted on 03/06/2013 8:12:30 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

No knowledge that he has made that claim, NBC determination has been from external interpretation. Valid??? Legality still TBD.


75 posted on 03/06/2013 8:32:33 PM PST by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

No knowledge that he has made that claim, NBC determination has been from external interpretation. Valid??? Legality still TBD.


76 posted on 03/06/2013 8:33:29 PM PST by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; David

Many thanks, Brown Deer and David

Brown deer, I remembered a site, linked below.

Texas marriage records 1966 to 2008 hasn’t anything for Eleanor Darragh so maybe marriage took place between 1962 and 1966 :

http://www.texasmarriagerecords.org/wife/darr-pamela-s—darrah-susan-l.html

But figuring the difference between Eleanor’s and Ted’s birth years puts her at around 35 years old when he was born.

Does this Citizenship requirement have any mistakes in it?

“For persons born between December 24,1952 and November 14,1986,a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock):
1.The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday”

So the minimum age she can be in order to meet #3 and 4 above is 24.

If she was 35 years old (born 1935) when he was born in 1970 then it works.

Working the numbers a different way, 1935 birth year for Eleanor + 24 is 1959.

If she got married in 1962 at the earliest , this also works; there’s a margin of 3 years... the cutoff year here would be 1959.


77 posted on 03/06/2013 8:47:19 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

So Cruz’ father was of Cuban nationality when he was born, PLUS he was born in Canada. And he claims to be a natural born citizen.

Makes me want to puke.


78 posted on 03/06/2013 8:55:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57; Brown Deer; David

There’s a math mistake here, the soonest a child’s birth could be (in Eleanor and Teds cases) 1935 + 14 + 5 is 1954.


79 posted on 03/06/2013 9:04:14 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Jindal, Rubio, and Cruz are great defenders of the Constitution UNTIL it threatens limits their own personal goals.

Why else have they been so silent? Just waiting for their turn to destroy parts of the Constitution?

See, if they said something, anything, someone might have to ask questions of the current usurper. Can’t have that.

Of course, the current usurper’s “story” is that he was born on American soil to at least one American parent. Jindal, Rubio, and Cruz don’t even meet that bogus standard.

Jindal, Rubio, and Cruz are much lower on the ever-changing NBC totem pole. They just don’t understand that the left will hold to the “Obama Standard” until they have another DEMOCRAT/COMMUNIST candidate to lower the standard further.

Dopes who think the left will let a Republican/Conservative get away with being a usurper need to get a clue.


80 posted on 03/06/2013 9:11:07 PM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I believe the text I noted from Vattel is correct and accurate though some people might have a copy that has para. 212 titled differently than what I have. I still stand by what the Founding Fathers meant and debated about with ‘natural born citizen’ is in the paragraph 212 I referred to. As to your questioning me as to what type of citizen Senator Cruz is I would base it considering it in the framework that my information is that he was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a USA citizen mother. His father was a fighter for Castro’s revolution but later rescinded the support ostensibly because he did not like communism. The family came to the USA when now Senator Cruz was 4 years old. As such my take is he can/does meet the requirements of a USA Senator like Obama but he is not eligible for POTUSA as much as some people would like to twist the Constitution for any personnal purposes. I like what I see of the man’s politics and believe that somewhere in this vast Nation there is or will be a person our Founding Fathers envisioned as POTUSA.


81 posted on 03/06/2013 11:12:23 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ

John McCain doesn’t meet your criteria, but Barack Obama does.

In my civics classes, I was taught that you are either a citizen at birth or a naturalized citizen. Two categories - not three or four or five or six or more.

Both McCain, by nature of his parentage, and Obama, by nature of his birthplace AND parentage, were citizens at birth.

If you don’t believe that either McCain or Obama were citizens at birth, then please quote for me a valid source documenting the time they became naturalized citizens.


82 posted on 03/07/2013 5:07:20 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
It is obviously not enough for birthers to hold to their obscure view of the law and/or peddle conspiracy theories - they must malign the motives of anyone who refuses to accept their view of the law and/or conspiracy theories.

A prominent conservative commentator or elected official refuses to sign on? They are OBVIOUSLY part of or a victim of the conspiracy! Or they just don't respect the Constitution and want to render the relevant language meaningless.

I have been consistent from way before 0bama hit the scene. When the Constitutionality of McCain as a potential President was discussed I looked at the Constitution and found only THREE types of citizen discussed. It seems obvious that McCain is not a naturalized citizen, and even more obvious that he was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (although he admittedly hasn't aged well). Thus he must be the only OTHER type of citizen made mention of in the Constitution - a natural born citizen.

Soon after 0bama was elected there was a Vattel revival - people fixated on Vattel 212 and insisted that based upon it McCain (and others) were not eligible for the Presidency. Most never bothered to read on to Vattel 217 that clearly made McCain eligible even if the founders went with Vattel as the end-all be-all of what constituted natural law - which is unlikely considering how obscure he was and how rarely he was mentioned and how closely the phrase “natural born citizen” agrees with and is congruent in meaning with the phrase in English law (which was the law the founders were most familiar with and many professionally trained in) “natural born subject”.

Most of our founders were natural born subjects of England - and based the legality of their rebellion on the King not respecting their rights as natural born subjects of England - and obviously very few of our founders were actually born IN England.

83 posted on 03/07/2013 7:51:08 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57; Brown Deer; LucyT; null and void
See brown deer’s post #62, it has Cruz’s birth date but lists no marriage date for his parents.

I don't in any way mean to be negative about BD's work--I rely on it first for much of my own thinking.

But, "about 35" is not exactly precise enough I don't think.

Ted born in 1970 at her age 35 is probably workable--however her birth date in 35 makes her four years younger than Ted's father--which is certainly not impossible.

But to start looking at the fine print in the effective date clauses for the citizenship statute, a hard date would be better; maybe with some record document.

I would have thought that in the hotly contested Texas Senate race, someone would have been looking at this stuff.

84 posted on 03/07/2013 8:17:58 AM PST by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Your first paragraph of your last response shows/expresses why our different views and construction of history of the USA will not be reconciled. My years of living has taught me that words, and even events, mean different things to different people. So be it! I shall continue to believe as to the intent of the Founder’s incorporating that a specific requirement ‘natural born citizen’ was to be differentiated from the less restrictive stated requirement of ‘citizen’ for Congresspersons. My belief carries no accusatory words as to others that have a different belief even though an important, if not a vital, impact of/on our Constitution is in question.


85 posted on 03/07/2013 9:33:56 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: David

Do my posts #77 (and math correction in #79) help?

They are a first cut at a worst case analysis, and a starting point to show where we need to fill in the gaps in the timeline:

When his parents got married (look 1962 to early 1970),

When they went to the job assignment in Canada.

Many thanks again!

Your point about state senate got me thinking .. what points germane to what we are looking at would have come up then?


86 posted on 03/07/2013 9:42:28 AM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

I agree that the qualifications are different between the Presidency (either a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution or a natural born citizen) and a Senator (a citizen of any type). That should be obvious.

Where we differ is that you seem to think there is some OTHER category of citizen not mentioned in the Constitution.

There are only three types of U.S. citizen mentioned in the U.S. Constitution - at the time of adoption, natural born, or naturalized.

The more restrictive standard for the Presidency is that naturalized citizens are not qualified for the Presidency.

Do you consider Senator Cruz (or McCain) a naturalized citizen? You did not answer a clear question about what type of citizen you would consider Senator Cruz.


87 posted on 03/07/2013 9:50:24 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
My records of Vattel writtings show his arguments were ‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’.

His comment, from his own Swiss point of view, was that the natives, or indigenes (we would say the "indigenous people" of a country) were those born in the country of parents who were citizens.

His book was never the source of our phrase natural born citizen (which came from natural born subject), and no one ever translated his "natives or indigenes" to mean "natural born ciitizens" until 10 years after our Constitution was written.

When they did, it wasn't even an American translator who used that phrase. It was some guy over in England.

Vattel has nothing at all to do with "natural born citizen" in our Constitution. And yes, if Ted Cruz was born an American citizen, he's eligible to be elected President.

88 posted on 03/07/2013 11:49:28 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

My wonderment at this time in our discussion and by your last remarks is why you are so strident with your demands on how I view your questions without being upfront with what you are getting at and reasons for such. I previously commented as to Cruz that being born in Canada of a Cuban citizen father, even with a USA citizen mother, Cruz could be eligible for the Senate but not for POTUSA. That said his USA citizen ship depends on the legal weight of having a USA citizen mother as opposed to the other factors of his birth. It should have been obvious that I do not consider Cruz a ‘natural born citizen’ per Constitutional requirements. McCain’s situation is really unique and the Obama enablers latched onto that to pave a way to justify Obama’s eligibility. I believe that McCain’s eligibility pivots on whether being born of a USA citizen mother at a hospital not on actual USA soil. At this point of comparisons between Cruz and McCain the difference exists in that McCain’s mother was part of being located on USA government duties/business. Cruz’s parents while in Canada apparently had no USA government position This feature separates McCain’s status from Cruz’s status and does at a matter of fact enter into defining their citizenship. Some have argued by virtue of a Panama Canal agreement there should be no questioning of McCain’s birth as being on USA soil. Obama enablers apparently could not stretch McCain’s situation to include Obama in a Senate resolution but I believe the Obama enablers had McCain’s situation in their pockets ready to use if McCain had won the election.


89 posted on 03/07/2013 1:29:31 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

The writings of Founders and records will show that Franklin and Washington and probably others were well aware of Vattel and it was Franklin who had copies of Vattel’s books who suggested that the drafted Constitution be revisited to incorporate the the Founder’s intent to have a ‘natural born citizen’ as a requirement for POTUSA. Cruz being born and resident in Canada for four years of a USA citizen mother and a Cuban father does not meet the POTUSA requirements as far as I am concerned. It can be argued that the USA shorts Itself from very able and really Constitutional people by the Founders use of words but I believe the Founders were men of wisdom beyond their times and did their best to lay out a document ‘to form a more perfect union’ for generations to come. There are and will be men and women to carry the Founder’s intentions.


90 posted on 03/07/2013 2:05:09 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: David
however her birth date in 35 makes her four years younger than Ted's father--which is certainly not impossible.

She is 4 years older than Ted's father.

a hard date would be better; maybe with some record document.

see line 79 - She was 5 years old in 1940, making her born about 1935. Public records show her birthdate as November 23, 1934.


91 posted on 03/07/2013 2:21:56 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
According to Vattel (if he is your go to authority) McCain would be an “indigenous or native” of the USA or a “natural born citizen” as you would have it in Vattel 212 according to the formulation used in Vattel 217.

This is hardly a unique case. American citizens are born abroad all the time to U.S. citizen parents serving in the armed forces.

Vattel 217 spells out that McCain would be deemed ‘born in country’ for any such citizenship questions because his father has not ‘quit’ his nation - instead he was serving it.

So if Vattel is your authority, McCain would be qualified.

If the U.S. Constitution is your authority - and really it should be - then of the three types of U.S. citizen mentioned in the Constitution - which is McCain? Obviously he was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. So is he a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen? Or do you want to “twist” the meaning of the Constitution to come up with a new type of citizen not mentioned in the Constitution?

92 posted on 03/07/2013 2:25:22 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57; David

Eleanor E. Daragh was born on November 23, 1934 and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz was born in March of 1939.


93 posted on 03/07/2013 2:33:31 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: randita

You weren’t taught about Natural Born Citizenship, which is just exclusive for a sitting President, requirement of jus solis being born in United States. Never said McCain wasn’t a citizen, he wasn’t born inside the United States so can’t be President as he’s not natural born citizen.

Zero? We have no evidence of American birth, who his real parents are, and we have no evidence he’s even a citizen. I personally believe he is an illegal alien, most likely foreign born as well since that’s what he told everyone up until 2007. Something has been covered up and it’s not for a sex change operation.

Let’s assume Stanley Ann Dunham was his mother. If she dropped him in a foreign country in 1961 — Section 301 (a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was the relevant citizenship law at the time, meaning requirement was that the parent had to have been physically present in U.S. at least 19 years old to confer citizenship. She was born Nov 29, 1942 and was 18. She could not have conferred citizenship to a foreign born son ACCORDING TO THE LAW AT THE TIME. Just an example.


94 posted on 03/07/2013 4:04:24 PM PST by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

What kind of ‘citizen’ do you think McCain is and why do you think as you do? I have already told you where I see McCain fitting in. If you would choose to think/reflect about what was presented instead of pontificating about your take on three kinds of citizens the discussion would end. As an associated question to/for you I ask ‘Where does the legalization of illegal immigrants fit into your take on kinds of citizenship under currently proposed resolutions’? especially as to being eligible for POTUSA.


95 posted on 03/07/2013 4:11:46 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Yes. You twist the constitution to fit your needs for some fourth type of citizen. You say you follow Vattel then ignore Vattel 217.


96 posted on 03/07/2013 4:19:18 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Non citizens must be naturalized. Naturalized citizens are not eligible. Obviously.


97 posted on 03/07/2013 4:21:52 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
The writings of Founders and records will show that Franklin and Washington and probably others were well aware of Vattel and it was Franklin who had copies of Vattel’s books who suggested that the drafted Constitution be revisited to incorporate the the Founder’s intent to have a ‘natural born citizen’ as a requirement for POTUSA.

Of course the Founders were well aware of Vattel. They were well aware of a lot of people. They studied literally dozens of philosophers and political writers.

Vattel was a writer on international law, and was influential in that sphere. There's nothing to suggest the Founders paid the slightest attention to him when it came to citizenship, or a lot of other things, for that matter. He believed the government should control religion and restrict freedom of speech, and that only the upper class should be able to keep and bear arms. They clearly rejected him on all those points, and there is nothing to even faintly suggest they followed his ideas on citizenship.

98 posted on 03/07/2013 7:27:52 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

And no, there is nothing to suggest that Ben Franklin was the person who pushed the natural born citizen qualification. The person who did that was John Jay, and there’s nothing to suggest he did anything other than write a letter to Washington.


99 posted on 03/07/2013 7:29:32 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

IIRC, Obama’s mother’s age came into play. She was a minor.


100 posted on 03/07/2013 7:45:42 PM PST by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson