Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Justia’s Tim Stanley was a member of Obama for America.
Coincidence of course.
Probably! It’s bass ackwards thinking to me.
Absolutely. He spoke about both...
Amazing! It took you four whole words to contradict yourself. See that solely and only in my question? There can't be a "both" with my question and your own "Absolutely." precludes such a thing as well.
...he was talking about those born after the adoption of the Constitution.
Truth: It's completely clear that Rawle was talking about people born after the adoption of the Constitution.
William Rawle (April 28, 1759 – April 12, 1836)
"...no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us".
So I draw your attention to the preceding paragraph...regarding his use of "us".
Once again, context is everything.
It's just one more insult and false accusation that is my reward for standing up for the Constitution.
I can't tell you how strange it is to stand up for the Constitution, at a site where people are supposed to value that sacred document, and be constantly attacked for it.
By YOU. Among others.
As for concern about Obama, what do you want me to do? What litmus test do you want me to pass? Do you want me to cry?
There's nothing I can do about Obama. He is going to be President for the next 3-1/2 years, and there's not a d*** thing I can do about it.
He's going to screw up what he's going to screw up. I'm sorry if that sounds fatalistic, but as far as any impact I personally am likely to have on the whole thing, that's the size of it.
I could call my Congressman and urge him to be a better conservative, but he's a pretty decent conservative already and my phone calls to him aren't going to change a single thing he does, either.
So what do you expect me to do? Whine and moan about the direction Obama's taking the country? I hardly know what good that's going to do.
I just don't get what you expect me to do.
Especially given that I don't currently have the slightest chance of impacting anything by whatever whining and moaning I might do.
That's on one side.
On the other, I just might be able to uphold the Constitution, by insisting that people stop misrepresenting it, where they ABSOLUTELY, CLEARLY ARE.
That's about the only thing I can do that might make even the SLIGHTEST difference.
And that's MY perspective on the situation.
Didn't he say that it was unreasonable to conclude that those foreign children were eligible to the Presidency?
If you don’t know how to express concern for the irreparable destruction of the country that is just strange. Most people know such things instinctively.
All you are standing up for is the right of persons w foreign allegiances to occupy the highest office of the land & use it to destroy the Republic. Nothing noble about it, and it’s a v weird mindset that imagines otherwise.
Uh, yes, that's my point. That's from the dissent, remember. He read the decision, saw that it concluded that those foreign children were eligibible, and said that was unreasonable.
” I just might be able to uphold the Constitution, by insisting that people stop misrepresenting it, where they ABSOLUTELY, CLEARLY ARE.”
What are your background credentials on Constitutional Law and History that gives you the authoritative reasoning that the Constitution is being misrepresented by the people?
No, I am standing up for the truth. Plain and simple.
I was thinking about this yesterday. I fully believe that some people here, whether philosophically or not, whether consciously or unconsciously, have decided that the truth really doesn't matter.
It seems to me that the philosophy is that politics is "war," and propaganda is a perfectly legitimate tactic. So they are prepared to say anything, true or not, if they think it "furthers their cause." This is a philosophy of the end "justifying" the means.
That's not my philosophy. To me, telling the truth is a conservative value. And engaging in deliberate propaganda is wrong.
And to me, if someone is misrepresenting what the Founders and Framers said, that's not a conservative position.
You are a v sad person to watch. You have bought hook, line & sinker into the modern liberal mindset, & you cannot imagine the Framers not thinking the exact same way. You project your views onto them, & nothing will ever dissuade you from the error you’ve fallen prey to. It is v sad to see.
Meanwhile Obama, the perfect POTUS by your way of thinking, is destroying the USA for all of time. Traditional America is already gone & it’s not coming back. You diddle around in your fallacy ridden sandbox, either oblivious to or in agreement w the devastation Obama is wreaking. It’s straight out of the Theater of the Absurd.
So what does an Naturalization Act DO except naturalize an alien?
-----
I found that an extraordinary claim and asked for some historical evidence. You've provided references to naturalizations in Massachusetts
The fact the early Naturalization Acts were recognizing natural born citizens has been on these threads for over a week now. Not one time have I seen you question their validity. Until I reference back to the exact same Acts and the exact same verbiage….then suddenly these facts become questionable.
Anyone who will discount the same piece evidence based strictly on whether or not they are in agreement with the source it came from has indeed, already made up their mind.
That being the case, I see no point in continuing the conversation.
Have an exceptional evening.
It does not prove that such is required.
Uh, yes, that's my point.
Uh...no, you didn't make that point.
You concluded in your reply 286 the very unreasonable thing Fuller said you shouldn't.
There are ECL reception statutes in the states, there are none for the United States. The federal govt. is not founded upon nor does it incorporate ECL.
Your claim that the common law of England is in every state the same in regard to the basics of citizenship is irrelevant.
Still waiting for you to show where ECL is incorporated into United States law.
You’re an engineer, aren’t you.
Where is the ruling that those foreign children were eligible? The syllabus version will suffice.
Ark wasn't declared a natural born citizen in the decision, was he?
I've thought that for a while, too. There are two sides engaged in a bitter battle for the future of this country, that's true. But some people's analysis stops at "which side are you on?" and so long as you're on the "right" side, whatever you do or say is justified. And that leads to this obsession with labeling anyone who disagrees with them, about anything, as being "on the other side." This was never my idea of conservatism.
How dare you drag facts into the Birther Fever Swamp!
By the fifth clause of the first section of article two of the Constitution, it is provided that:
No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the 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.
In the convention, it was, says Mr. Bancroft,
objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President.
2 Bancroft Hist. U.S. Const. 193.
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
By the second clause of the second section of article one, it is provided that:
No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State of which he shall be chosen;
and, by the third clause of section three, that:
No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [p716]
At that time, the theory largely obtained, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution, "that every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States." § 1693.
Context, context, context.
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.