Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?
If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
If Obama can be President, why not Cruz?
In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”
www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Funny thing is Obama sat on the committee that determined John McCains elegibility to run against him. What a screwed up Congress we have...
Like everything else he touches, Obama destroyed the natural born citizen clause. It no longer has any meaning.
My Only concern now is whether a candidate has divided loyalty.
Cruz is in every sense of the word a Natural Born American.
Obama is in every sense of the word a Natural Born America hater.
Well... for that matter, why not the guy who comes here every day and empties the waste baskets???
I am with Ted Cruz and will eagerly support him for president.
There were MANY founding fathers and each had their own individual opinions on how things should be.....but it is the consensus of the entire group and what they put in writing that counts and it seems Ramsay’s opinion didn’t count for much. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is a joke within the American judicial system. Has he ever won a case?
I can’t wait to see hordes of democRats turn into raving birthers!
After Obama, why not?
Why don't we get the SCOTUS to take one of the many really well presented eligibility appeals that have reached their holy offices and you know, like, rule on it or whatever?
Why do we pay these guys, (and commie law-bimbos) again? I would really like to know their august opinion on what a citizen is, what a "natural born Citizen" is, whether or not a child born in the USA to two aliens, legal or otherwise, is a citizen, or heavens forfend, if one can be made a citizen after entering ther country illegally.
How about the SCOTUS getting off its black-robed posterior and figuring this out for us. I agree with Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, et al, but since none of us has the word "SCOTUS" on our paycheck, and Barry and Reggie, Michelle, Bo The Dog, still fly over our impoverished heads in separate government aircraft, it really doesn't matter much what we and Sheriff Joe think.
Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas,
I know you agree with me, Mario, and Leo. How's about getting off your asses and doing something about it? I.E., before another justice croaks or resigns and the Mombasa MF appoints Raúl Castro to the bench.
Exactly.
Natural born citizen:
Citizen parents(plural)
Born in the country
Cruz:
Citizen parent(singular)
Not Born in the country
Remember, no act of legislation, and not even a Constitutional amendment can make a “natural born citizen” out of a person who would not have been accepted as one at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
I agree. I’m not 100% sure if Cruz is tehnically a Natural Born Citizen, but he is certainly a patriotic Amercian.
Assuming Obama really was born in Hawaii, he technically would be a NBC, but by the spirit of the law, he is not even close. He was born to a foreign, Marxist father, who returned to his home country shortly after his son’s birth and a Marxist mother. He was born (if we believe the official story) in a state that had just become a state and is thousands of miles from the mainland. He spent his formative years in Indonesia, an Islamic, anti-American nation.
Even if such a man showed no signs of divided loyalties and was ostensibly a patriotic American (unlike Obama), the voters should reject such a man from being POTUS based upon the potential of divided loyalities and his lack of a real, American upbringing. I think Barack Hussein Obama is exactly the type of man the founders were thinking of when they adopted the natural born citizen requirement.
Right, I think that our office clean up guy is WAAAY smarter and he DOES know what work is.
FYI, Jersey Man, Apuzzo is a very well respected and highly successful attorney in your state who has always done quite well for his clients.
He has not done well in getting his clients heard on this eligibility matter. He believes in the Constitution, while those in power in the United States do not. The fact that his POV has not yet prevailed is no reason to condemn him.
Speaking of attorneys and respect, your POTUS is a disbarred attorney. This gets your respect?
I don’t know whether Cruz is constitutionally eligible or not, BUT the media will HAVE to say he is, in the end, or face going into more detail into Obama’s eligibility, which they definitely do not want.
Toronto is a heck of a lot closer than Nairobi!
Two wrongs don't make a right. Quit chipping away at the US Constitution.
I see that you are no different than the lamestreet media except you are carrying Mario's water instead of Barry's.
I don’t know whether Cruz is constitutionally eligible or not, BUT the media will HAVE to say he is, in the end, or face going into more detail into Obama’s eligibility, which they definitely do not want.BINGO! - Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner!
I hope Cruz starts to run, campaigns just long enough to get a lot of media coverage so that they can't ignore him when he announces that after having thoroughly researched the matter, he is ineligible due to his father having been a foreigner when he (Ted) was born. The regime-stream media's collective heads would explode.
I don’t think something that FReepers have been frothing over with 500 post threads for six months is Breaking News.
“I don’t know whether Cruz is constitutionally eligible or not, BUT the media will HAVE to say he is, in the end”
You wanna bet?
This controversy will not go away. Even if Cruz is eligible, many conservatives will still refuse to vote for him because he’s Canadian. And the MSM will be sure to remind everyone of that all the time.
I did not put it in Breaking news, some one else did.
It’s always fun to bump stuff up to Front Page or Breaking News just to see how long it takes the Hammer of the Mods to fall. In this case it wasn’t me either.
Per the article provided, natural born citizenship requires:
1. physical birth on U.S. legal soil,
2. BOTH parents citizenship
3. birth after 1789 or whenever the Constitution was ratified
As Cruz was born in Canada, he fails.
As Cruz’s father was not a citizen, but a Cuban, he fails.
It’d be fun to watch the media explain this. Not that they will. Or that anybody would pay attention.
"Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “.If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after*."
Since his passports disappeared and his school records, we don't know if his stepfather adopted him and made him an Indonesian citizen and if he went to college as a foreign student.
At first I was against Cruz running, (since there is a question on his natural-born status) but the way the Dems have flagrantly broken laws over and over again, and how the Supreme Court allowed the unconstitutional Obamacare to stand by calling it a tax, I say he should go for it. I'd like to see a ruling before it gets too far down the line on Ted Cruz. Maybe the Tea Party needs to have someone take it to court now, so that we can get an early ruling on his eligibility.
I am with you Obadiah. Cruz is the best man for the job..bar NONE. His mother born and raised in Delaware, his father became a citizen in the 50’s and entered the US legally.
Cruz is a constitutional lawyer and would bet he knows he is eligible
Maybe it was because after the Founding generation had gone through the one-time special Naturalization Act where they obtained the privileges and immunities OF natural-born Citizens, the federal government no longer had any authority concerning it!
Exactly my feelings!
re: “This controversy will not go away. Even if Cruz is eligible, many conservatives will still refuse to vote for him because he’s Canadian. And the MSM will be sure to remind everyone of that all the time.”
Good point.
bookmark
No, his father didn't become a citizen until 2005
sorry but natural born needs only one parent (the mom) to be a citizen.
This is because if Canada and the USA both required both parents to be citizens, then Cruz would be a citizen of no country on earth, would have no place to live and the baby would have to be dumped in the trash, ocean or whereever.
The two parent rule should be illegal due to pure stupidity.
And I say “preferably the mom” because before 1980, you only have the mom’s word for it on who the dad is and I’m sure the founding fathers were aware of adultery and may have done some of their own screwing around.
the final problem with the two parent rule is suppose a citizen mom is pregnant with a sperm donor of unknown origin (either via sperm bank or one night stand), then what ?
furthermore, who do you count as the father, the father who raised the child from birth or the biological father.
next is the question of do the parents need to be citizens at conception or at the day the baby pops out of the womb.
Not necessarily.
The hypocritical HillBots and OBots and their loud Main Stream Media will scream Obama is - jus soli, jus soli, jus soli makes NBC - and Cruz is not.
Well I guess the ron paul write-in gang can write him in again to assist crowning Queen Hiltery.
And his views on citizenship were voted down almost unanimously - 36 to 1 - by our first House of Representatives, including the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.
And New Jersey Realist is right. Apuzzo is no Constitutional lawyer, and he's never won even one single case on his Constitutional claims.
Yes, Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to be President - according to the top authorities of the early United States who knew exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born citizen." And all the statements that he isn't need to stop.
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)
Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read and approved by the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the famous Chancellor James Kent, as well as other legal experts of the early United States.
Not one single person ever said he was wrong about his understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.
Provide a link to your source, please.
I don’t have time to dig up the link right now. I’ll try and do so later.
In the meantime, you can go do a google books advanced search and find it for yourself.
If you find a second edition of Bayard’s exposition (1834 or later, the original was published in 1833), it’ll give you his complete text, including his discussion of Presidential eligibility, and it will also give you his notes that tell about the reaction he had from the top legal experts of his day. These wrote him letters approving his exposition of the Constitution.
The only disagreement that any of the experts expressed was from Chief Justice John Marshall, the Great Chief Justice who had dominated the Supreme Court for decades starting shortly after the Constitution was ratified. He noted that Congress didn’t need the “assent” of the States to build post and military roads. And of course, Bayard promptly corrected the mistake.
Bayard’s discussion on Presidential eligibility is quite prominent and COMPLETELY CLEAR. A person doesn’t have to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. He only need to be BORN A CITIZEN.
In this, he of course agrees absolutely with our other top legal expert William Rawle, who was crystal clear that children born on US soil of alien parents were natural born citizens. Again, they didn’t have to have citizen parents. They only had to be BORN A US CITIZEN in order to be a natural born citizen, and “entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Don't bother. You have got to be the single most deceptive person it has EVER been my displeasure to come across in all my time on FR....bar NONE.
Would you like to know why I said 'don't bother'?
Here's the Google results for your *quote*
Gee, I wonder why all those lead to YOUR POSTS ON FR, Jeff? I wonder why this quote can't be found ANYWHERE else on the net.
Would you like to know what a LEGITMATE quote from Bayard looks like, Jeff?
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
-----
In the meantime, you can go do a google books advanced search and find it for yourself.
Do your own homework....and FOR THE SECOND TIME, REMOVE ME FROM YOUR PING LIST.
Anyone who twists the facts and truncates quotes in order to support a false argument has nothing to say that would interest me at all.
his father became an American citizen before Cruz was born.
No, his father didn’t become a citizen until 2005
Barry’s Daddy NEVER became a Citizen...
Nope. In fact, according to the 1963 Kenyan Constitution:
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1).
Chapter 6 - Citizenship - Section 87
Sorry DL. I meant to PING you to post #43 as well.
You, sir, have nailed it!!!! Mr. Rogers and I have had at it with some very stubborn people in this forum over the past but you made the finest argument in fewer words than I could have ever imagined.
re: “Gee, I wonder why all those lead to YOUR POSTS ON FR, Jeff? I wonder why this quote can’t be found ANYWHERE else on the net.”
Thank you for this info MamaTexan. Jeff Winston must have A LOT of time on his hands to post that quote so many times, and all on FR.
re: “Thank you for this info MamaTexan. Jeff Winston must have A LOT of time on his hands to post that quote so many times, and all on FR.”
Check out Post #42 and follow the Google link. The quote from Winston appears to be totally bogus.
re: “You, sir, have nailed it!!!! Mr. Rogers and I have had at it with some very stubborn people in this forum over the past but you made the finest argument in fewer words than I could have ever imagined.”
Check out post #43 and follow the Google link. Apparently Winston’s quote is bogus.
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.