Nailed it. And it would appear that NRO is playing along also. . .
Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.
There's an emphasis on the fathers being citizens at the time of birth in order for the child to be a citizen at birth and this is true home and abroad. It leaves out the present WH occupant and several possible contenders.
They are both perfectly eligible to run for President, on fulfilling the other qualifications: 35 years of age, and 14 years a resident of the United States.
There is a fairly large contingent of mythspinners here, who claim it takes birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Some of them post literally dozens of pages of fallacious arguments. I am in process of trying, slowly, to document these. I've got 39 so far, and have no doubt that I'm nowhere near done.
Early legal authorities and other writers are virtually unanimous in saying that being a "natural born citizen" or eligible to the Presidency meant or required being "born on US soil" or "born a citizen."
As far as I'm aware, the ONLY early "authority" who said differently was a physician, historian and politican named David Ramsay, who at least sort of argued otherwise... although he really wasn't even arguing about the children born in the after-Revolution United States of immigrant parents.
Ramsay was running a sore-loser campaign to try and disqualify one of the guys who beat him for a seat in the US House of Representatives. That was the obvious purpose of his little "treatise on citizenship." And he was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison. So Ramsay's opinion was officially judged by one of our most prominent Founding Fathers as being absolutely worthless.
Against this there are literally dozens of more competent voices, including a few that are abundantly clear, like that of William Rawle, early American legal expert who met regularly with Washington and Franklin to discuss politics and law, and who was in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
On the face of it, it seems a slam dunk. Cruz was not born in Hawaii, so he's ineligible. But in the back of my mind there is the nagging possibility that his American Citizen mother may have consumed a Dole Pineapple Product while she was carrying a Cuban Citizen's baby, thus qualifying Cruz as natural born under the Pineapple Amendment, Cuban addendum. It could also cover Rubio. Unfortunately for Jindal, there is no Curry Clause (that I know of.)
Yo, Tony Scalia, how about a little help here? The real question is that if one is born to two American citizens, on American Territory, but not in Hawii, and ya mudda hated pineapple, are you still eligible for welfare in Tennessee?
Two words for young Ted: See ya. What's wrong with your Senate job anyway? You're eligible for that!
In the Minor vs. Happersett court case, the court talked about people born in the u.s. whose parents were citizens, referring to them as “natural born citizens”.
The court said even if “natural born citizen” wasn’t directly defined in the constitution, there was background material they referred to that supported the “born in u.s. to American citizen parent’s” position.
I.e. the court said the writers of the constitution and writers of that time did know the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”.
When did the Supreme Court ever rule on George Romney? I’ve never read that.
Okay n00b, show us where the Supremne Court ruled on George Romney’s eligibility. Go ahead, show us. You n00b Internet workers buzz into these threads at FR thinking you can lie as openly as you do elsewhere. So, show us where the Supreme Court ruled on Geroge Romney’s citizenship status as ‘Natural Born’.
Oh my, whatever will we do with you. Not drinking your serving of obamanoid koolaid?
I wonder, could you get Ted to make a public comment on how much his mother liked pineapple while she was preggers with him? ... There might be an ‘absorption clause’ that could be brought to bear.
A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania
Samuel Roberts (1817)
Page 26
The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; 12. but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.
12. In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature. “It is presumed,” says Vattel, “that every citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is that of the children; and they become true citizens by their tacit consent."—“ In order to be of the country it is necessary, that a person be born of a Father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be the place of his birth, and not his country.” “ By the laws of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter in to all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.” Law of Nations, B. 1. c. XIX…
http://archive.org/details/digestofselectbr00robe
h/t thalightguy
That's funny. You remind me of Saul Alinsky, PT Barnum, and Crystal Gail Mangum.
I sincerely advise both of these Ricky Ricardos, whom I happen to like a little bit if they cut this Presidential shiite, to STFU and to 1st master, and then do the job to which they were elected.
Senator is pretty high on the food chain, or so I had been led to believe in Civics class.
The Courts will NEVER decide the issue as the Courts were not given the power, by the Constitution you CLAIM to hold in high regard, to decide these issues!
The STATE election officers, the STATE voters, the STATE ELECTORS and the CONGRESS are in charge.
PERIOD
and they all think that you birthers are IDIOTS!
Jeff works for little barry bastard boy, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Steven Barnard Dunham, aka Baracky Obamaroid, aka, the whiz, as in a short piss.
Here is a more prominent authority on the subject. The father of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham stated this on the House floor:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Senator Ted Cruz’s father owed allegiance to foreign sovereignty, namely Cuba. According to Representative John Bingham, Cruz is not a Constitutional natural born Citizens eligible for Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Stunning persuasiveness. Bravo.
Bwahahahaha ... it’s been doing that work for a few years now at FR.
Senators can be NATURALIZED citizens.
The President can NOT be a NATURALIZED citizen.
There, your question is answered.
This falls into the unresolved area of doubt to which Chief Justice Waite referred, imho. Did Cruz's father owe allegiance to or fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereignty? The answer is arguably no.
His mother was a US citizen.
That leaves Canada as the sole source of any foreign claims upon Cruz himself. Was he a Canadian citizen at birth? If so, he does not fall under the category of natural born citizen of the United States. If not, I'd go so far as to say that he could be, but there are several considerations that would have to be settled to make such a determination.
Nailed it. And it would appear that NRO is playing along also. . .
Don't you get it? They are minorities. 173 days worth of sitting in the senate chambers means they become not only Natural Born Citizens but are destined to become president before their first term even ends.
As of 2008, no experience required. Just need at least one foreign parent and be non-white. Birth on foreign soil is a bonus.
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.