Bingo.
Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by Fai Mao
On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.
Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.
Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.
No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No, you lie, obfuscate and disrupt.
YOU, are a troll.
your humor dwarfs me but at least im not a troll or a fairy or some other godmotherless hething
He was born in Canada. Therefore, he is ineligible to be President.
His father was a Cuban national until 2005, and Cruz was born in Canada and lived there until he was 4.
Does that sound like a natural born citizen to you?
Bingo.
Not according to Ginsburg. There has already been a discussion on the record during an oral argument about the NBC clause
But she will be dead before the case would get to the Supremes.
You can't name one single single thing I've ever knowingly posted that was untrue.
And if I have ever been inaccurate in anything I've posted, and it's been pointed out, I've tried to correct it.
That makes YOU the liar (since you've falsely accused me) and it makes YOU the troll.
Here I post ACCURATE HISTORICAL QUOTES. I even mention the ONLY known historical quote from the era that genuinely go against the grain, and explain why I haven't included it.
And you accuse me of "lying."
It's not me you loathe. It's our Founding Fathers and early legal experts. Because I have simply posted accurate quotes by them, and the accurate and accepted understanding of what they said.
And no, it's not a "liberal" understanding. This is the understanding of virtually every significant legal authority in history. It's the understanding of major conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and National Review.
And you seem to loathe all of them.
After Barry the Sequesterer, ANYONE on the planet who can fog a mirror is eligible. That was why the commie ‘RATS put him in there in the first place. It was the commies’ first all out assault on the U.S. Constitution. It worked.
Yes, it is natural, normal and usual to be born in the country where your parents have citizenship. If your parents are citizens of the U.S.A., then it is natural, normal and usual for you to be born in the U.S.A. Why? Because it is natural, it is normal, it is usual for citizens of a nation to live and conduct their daily living routines, in the country of which they are citizens. It is outside of the natural, normal or usual for citizen to live in a country where they are not a citizen. It is also, natural, normal or usual for a child to be of the same citizenship as their parent. To separate a child from their parents’ citizenship(s) is inconsiderate of the family bond of citizenship. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen because he was born with dual citizenship. It is not normal, natural or usual for the son of Obama’s father to be a citizen of a country of which his father is not a citizen. Nor would it be normal, natural or usual for him to not also have his mother’s citizenship. His parentage is a double bind and while as an adult he can declare one citizenship over the other, he will always have a citizenship tie to his father’s citizenship country which is why he is not a natural born citizen, as it is not normal or usual for a son of his father to not be a citizen of his father’s homeland.
Nice enough diagram. But it is based on theory unsupported by virtually every legal authority in history. And by history itself.
This could be interpreted a couple of ways. One way is that our early leaders (which included James Madison, the Father of the Constitution) believed they had the power to define which persons born outside of US soil were natural born citizens as well.
The other is that they already believed they were, and passed a law simply to clarify that.
People continue to produce shoddy scholarship that shows no thinking by the author compiling all the scholarship. These attempts to confuse people will be fought at every step.
Try again.
You got right there
Superman was not born in America. :)
ACCURATE HISTORICAL QUOTES
your worthless reaching interpretation is the issue. BALONEY
So about the first ten presidents were like Obama cause the U.S. didn’t exist when they wee born? Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etall were not natural born citizens. Was there an exception to them that we don’t know about?
He definitely has my vote and enthusiastic support.
That's your opinion, based upon your selective interpretation of historical evidence.
As I've told you before, the Natural Born Citizen topic has been discussed in great depth for many years on this forum, and anyone who followed those conversations during the first two years of Obama's time in office, has heard every conceivable side of the argument.
One of the more scholarly posts on the subject was penned by Freeper Sourcery in January 2012. Here's an excerpt, and a link to the full article. I highly recommend reading all of it:
"The Constitution requires that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen:
Article II, section 1, pa. 5: "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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
If "natural born citizen" is a synonym for "citizen," then there is no reason for adding the exception "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." None at all. Being a citizen is not sufficient, unless you happened to be alive when the Constitution was adopted.
So what, then, is a "natural born citizen"? To answer that question definitively will require a full examination of the concepts and history of citizenship.
Types Of Citizenship: Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, Natural Born, Native Born, Naturalized
Jus soli citizenship: "Jus soli" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the soil." Jus soli citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on the location of his or her birth.
Jus sanguinis citizenship: "Jus sanguinis" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the blood." Jus sanguinis citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on his or her ancestry.
Native born citizenship: A native born citizen is one whose citizenship derives from the facts of his birth, and who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. In both US and British law, those born within the sovereign territory of the country or born to parents who are citizens (subjects) of the country when the person is born are native citizens (subjects.) Native born persons are said to have "birthright citizenship." Note that one can be "native born" either by the "jus soli" principle or by the "jus sanguinis" principle.
Naturalized citizenship: A naturalized citizen is one whose citizenship is granted as a political act—by law or by the decision or act of a sovereign.
Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is not granted by law or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person from birth according to principles that don't depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign. The rest of this essay will fully justify this definition.
The Constitution of the United States did not originally explicitly define who did or did not not qualify as citizens. It originally had clauses where the general term citizen occurs, and had one clause where the specific term natural born citizen occurs (quoted above.) But the Constitution does grant Congress the power to define by law who shall be citizens:
Congress shall have power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization [Article I, Section 8]
Why did the Constitution limit the power it granted Congress over matters of citizenship to naturalization? Because Citizenship acquired solely by any law passed by Congress cannot logically be anything other than naturalized citizenship—by definition of naturalization. It's logically impossible for any act of Congress to make anyone a citizen by natural law. At most, such a law would be declaratory of natural law—because a citizen by natural law is a citizen no matter what laws Congress may or may not enact.
In fact, given the Founders' understanding of natural law versus man-made law, it would have been a logical contradiction to grant Congress the power to change or define natural law on any subject, not just regarding citizenship—because natural law, by late 18th-century definition, cannot be made by a legislature or head of state. That's why Congress was granted no such powers in any domain at all. Such a power could be used, among other things. to change the meaning of words, including those in the Constitution itself. The dangers of that should be obvious."
No, it “plainly means” one who is born as a citizen. As opposed to someone who, later in life, goes through a “natiralization” process.
Do you mean to say that an ambassador’s child born in anothet country can not become president?
Pfffttttt, LOL!
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:jeffwinston/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
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.