Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is at the center of the latest "birther" conspiracy. But he's not the first to face this line of questioning.
A handful of politicians have been targeted in the last few years with the same accusation -- that they are not fit for the Presidency because they do not meet the constitutionally-mandated eligibility requirement of being a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.
Confusion around who qualifies as a "natural born" citizen has contributed to the debate, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase. Some incorrectly presume it only includes people born within the boundaries of the United States. In fact, by U.S. citizenship law you can be American "at birth" or a "natural born citizen" under a few circumstances that don't involve being born on the mainland. For example, if you're born on a U.S. military base abroad, like in Panama, that counts. You are still categorized as being American "at birth" if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens and fit a list of long and complicated requirements that arebroken down here.
Check out our list of politicians who have battled "birther" claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
There IS a conspiracy among major media to take down threats to the status quo. Here’s a perfect example.
I think they are using it as an article to “Paint” Cruz as an “Insane Birther”...
As birther is now a prejoritive...
Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase. The Constitution doesn’t define any words! Guess ABC didnt’ know that!
I posted comments to the article at the ABC News site on what a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is and a little factual history on past presidents who had a foreign born parent just in case a liberal hypothetically say’s “It doesn’t matter, other presidents had foreign born parents”. Let’s see how long my comments stay up before they are scrubbed.
I’m reposting this from the comments section of the ABC story posted above. It’s well-worth the read...
The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’? There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated - “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”. That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!”. Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law? There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship. 1) born in or out of a country. 2) Both parents are citizens. 3) One parent is a citizen. 4) Neither parent is a citizen. The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both side want to ignore this FACT. Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do the decide to ignore next?
Now I like CRUZ!! But he is no “natural born”.
Good post at #7
ABC is trying to diffuse what they know is coming.
The article is pure tripe. Totally unrelated clips about non issue Presidential candidates.
The only ones that are/were clearly not eligible lied about it. That is President Authur and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or whatever his real name is).
The rest listed are simply noise to confuse.
Smells like something big on the horizon.
What's coming?
Revocation by a Naturalization Court
A naturalization court has authority to revoke its citizenship judgment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1451. However, Congress has strictly limited the grounds which support revocation. The only grounds are proof of concealment of a material fact, willful misrepresentation, or procurement in violation of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).
A natural born citizen does not have a certificate of citizenship or certificate of naturalization to be revoked. A natural born citizen uses a vital statistic record of live birth to prove birth within the territorial limits of the U.S., but does not have a certificate issued by the Federal government that can be revoked. Consequently, Jindal and Rubio are natural born citizens.
A U.S. citizen can move out of the country and voluntarily revoke their citizenship. And voluntarily revoking your citizenship can be acts construed by the SoS as deemed to have voluntarily revoking their citizenship, i.e. an oath of allegiance to a foreign country with renouncement of U.S. citizenship to foreign authorities. See Vance v. Terrazas http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=444&invol=252
Jindal, Rubio ... natural born citizens without a certificate of citizenship or naturalization that can be revoked.
Cruz, McCain ... citizens at birth and not natural born citizens (despite Resolution 511) because they each applied for citizenship and were issued certificates by the Federal government which could be revoked.
Terrazas of Vance v. Terrazas ... natural born citizen born in Maryland with one U.S. Citizen parent and one foreign national parent had his citizenship revoked after he signed and pledged an oath of renunciation of his U.S. Citizenship to Mexican authorities in Mexico.
That’s funny. I thought Obastard was at the heart of the birther conspiracies.
#7! BTTT
Proverbs 6
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
I despise the one stream media.
In that position, he possibly would be in office through many presidents.
Wouldn't it be great if we had a the leader of the Senate who didn't let anything go to the POTUS to be signed into law that wasn't Constitutional?
When was the last time we had anything close to such a person in the Senate leadership???
"They" are scared of him and others like him, and for good reason, and want him outta there!
No wonder they keep pushing him for a position that many realize he isn't eligible for. The effort hurts him and weakens support for him.
“Cruz, McCain ... citizens at birth and not natural born citizens (despite Resolution 511) because they each applied for citizenship and were issued certificates by the Federal government which could be revoked.”
Where are these ‘issued certificates by the Federal government’ located at Sven?
Also how can you call Jindal a natural born Citizen? His parent’s weren’t naturalized until AFTER he was born. Rubio’s father wasn’t naturalized until AFTER Marco was born.
Brilliant post. I see your point. Cruz cannot be president ( born in Canada) . Paul can and Rino Rubio can. But Cruz can do major good as leader on the Senate.YES!!
Obama has a certificate of Naturalization? No one has ever mentioned that before?
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.