Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76
The Canadian law quoted at the start of this column. Which is what I thought we were discussing.
Cruz, under the terms of that law, lost his Canadian citizenship (assuming he ever had it) unless he confirmed it after he turned 21.
So he has no obligation of allegiance to Canada.
5.2: A person who is a Canadian citizen under paragraph 1(b) ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the expiration of three years after the day on which he attains the age of twenty-one years unless he:1(b) is "born outside of Canada elsewhere than on a Canadian ship"Either is living in Canada or files a declaration of intention to retain Canadian citizenship.
Doesn't apply to Cruz.
He no longer has an obligation of allegiance to Canada.
And no one, absolutely no one, knew of this situation - until 2008 when Donofrio exposed it.
It was HIDDEN and COVERED UP....for a reason....
Read section 4.2. I cited the wrong one.
Applies to those born before January 1, 1947
Ted Cruz has been a US Senator for five minutes.
Only 3 sitting US Senators have ever been elected President and all 3 sucked.
I’d look elsewhere.
That's too broad. What is correct is the laws of other nations don't determine the American citizenship of an American. But, other nations may (and do) claim citizenship of people who are "born (at least partly) American."
For example, the babies born here on birth vacations are deemed by some to be natural born Americans, eligible for the presidency, even though neither parent is a US citizen, and even though the child is removed from the US at a very young age (weeks or months old) and raised in a foreign country.
For those people, the US, and ONLY the US, decides their US citizenship. But their citizenship overall may be more complicated, and determined by a country other than the US.
That's based on statutory law, and statutory law can be changed at the whim of Congress.
-- the US has recognized anchor babies in this country - a non citizen crosses the border and gives birth on this soil. That is an aberration of the law. It should be ended. --
This is going to get complicated, because babies born on US soil are subject to the jurisdiction of the US - so see 14th amendment, and discover that this type of citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. In order to repair this issue, now you'll need a constitutional amendment. I think it's too bad, because I think "subject to the jurisdiction" has been misconstrued, from Wong Kim Ark and forward. Thank you (spit), Chester A Arthur.
Puerto Ricans are citizens from birth.
But they are collectively naturalized.
So citizen at birth does NOT equal natural born Citizen.
This some made up definition.
The excerpt of law you provides says that a person who joins the armed forces of a foreign state has to also acquire foreign nationality, in order to lose US citizenship. And even this can be overridden by statute.
I make no agreement to stop talking about the courts. While you may be talking about “accuracy,” I’m talking about real life opinions and findings,
Everybody whose side loses blames the judge and the courts for the defeat,
Keep putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “la la la” but those who are fighting the eligibility battles have relied EXCLUSIVELY on the judiciary as the venue to wage this Constitutional battle. And that’s after one of the very first Triers of Fact to look at this issue told the plaintiffs that Congress was the appropriate branch og governmebt to seek redress of grievances.
There have been 322 civil actions, appeals and Supreme Court cert petitions/applications for stays, injunctions or extraordinary writs.
You are using a two-century-old example of rule by the whims of monarchs (one constitutional, the other absolute) as precedent for American constitutional law. Do I need to point out the problems with that?
Had he claimed to be an American, and was therefore exempt, they would have thrown him in the army or they would have thrown him in prison.
"Dual citizenship," as a legal status, does not exist in most of the world, except in countries where it's prohibited. If you are a citizen of Italy and the United States, under Italian law you are an Italian. Under US law you are an American. Not partly, not sorta kinda. You are required to use your US passport when entering or exiting the US; what happens at any other border or in any other country is not under US jurisdiction.
The Notion that someone who could have been compelled to fight in a Foreign Army against us is qualified to be our President is nonsensical and ridiculous.
The notion that a foreign country's laws can be allowed to dictate who is and who is not eligible to be president of the United States is nonsensical and ridiculous. Suppose Saddam Hussein, in 2000, had declared George W. Bush to be a citizen of Iraq. Would that have made him ineligible to be president?
I’m relating what the court rulings have consistently been since 1868.
For example: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
“This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
When the 14th Amendment says “All persons...” that includes Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Rightly or Wrongly, People buy into that fallacy of Authority argument, and they will BELIEVE something simply because someone in Authority TELLS them so.
It is a real problem getting people to think for themselves, and you keep coming along and trying to convince them to let the courts do their thinking for them. This is NOT a service to them or the nation.
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
That's the prevailing view on the subject among legal scholars, though I'd stop just short of calling it the consensus view. It is not, however, a popular view on Free Republic. There is no definitive point of view, because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on point.
If you don’t have Scalia and Thomas, you can’t win with a Vattel/Minor theory at the Supreme Court.
I think that's safe to say.
Please do. Perhaps in your repetition of my arguments, people will slowly wake up to the point. Jus Soli is Feudal/Monarchy based law meant to snare servants for the King. Our founding was a rejection of this claim upon us.
The notion that a foreign country's laws can be allowed to dictate who is and who is not eligible to be president of the United States is nonsensical and ridiculous.
The Referral to this as "foreign country's laws" is a miscomprehension of the topic. "International law" is long recognized, and governs how nations resolve disputes with each other. A person upon which no nation but one can lay any claim, is recognized by International law as having a sole citizenship to that one nation.
A Natural American citizen in Italy would still be recognized as an American Citizen in Italy, and by International law, not Italian law.
Most of the World has given up Jus Soli, including England. It was a stupid body of law, and it created all sorts of headaches and offenses throughout History. It was cobbled together by a Monarch intent on using it to further his Political Interests, and it has always been ill suited to a Republic of Free men. In this Country it was routinely violated by the Exceptions of British Loyalists, Slaves and Indians . It ought to be thrown on the ash heap of History, and as far as i'm concerned, the founders did that very thing.
Had not subsequent Lawyer @$$holes not lied about it, it would have stayed dead just as it should be.
SCOTUS may decide what gets forced down our throats, but this is a very different thing from deciding what is true.
Do you support Roe v Wade? If not, then tell me again about SCOTUS deciding stuff?
The 14th Amendment does not mention Article II.
You are mistaken to believe that the 14th Amendment “further defined” Article II when it never mentioned it, nor “natural born citizen”.
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.