Posted on 08/19/2013 6:05:19 AM PDT by praytell
WASHINGTON — Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.
Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.
That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Now, you tell me, who knew more what "natural born citizen" meant when used in the Constitution, those who wrote that 1790 bill and the one who signed it, or you?
Remember, George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention and many members of the Congress in 1790 had been part of bringing about the US Constitution. Remember that the Constitution was ratified in 1787, and the law of 1790 was only 3 years later.
They used "natural born citizen" in the 1790 law to describe the child born to US citizens who were overseas at the time of the child's birth. Who is right about the use of that term, them or you?
Maybe if we did, we would be known as the side that always follows rules instead of the the "hypocritical" side.
They used to say I wuz crazy...
...but I showed ‘em
I SHOWED ‘EM ALL!!!!
That discussion on bloodline is here in State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a counter-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
The bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.
So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.
In sum, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.
That discussion on bloodline is here in State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a counter-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
The bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.
So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.
In sum, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.
I noticed that in '08. If they'd gone strictly by the letter, The Boy Wonder's ticket would have been kicked out. McLame's too because technically he wasn't born on a US base although some claim US held the city of Colon. Nader's running mate, Gonzalez' mother was born a Mexican citizen so we'd have had a mess with that one heart beat away.
I noticed that in '08. The Boy Wonder wasn't in any shape or form eligible. Going strictly by the letter, which we should do, McLame wasn't either. He wasn't born on the US military base but in Colon although some wanted to let that slid. Nader's running mate, Gonzalez's mother was born a Mexican citizen which would have been a disaster with his "one heartbeat away". What are the odds of the top three tickets being at the very least questionable unless it was intentional. One is an oopsie. Two is a wake up call. Three is an outright concerted effort.
Did you mean “renounced”?
Citizenship rules in Canada are irrelevant if Canadian rules don’t follow natural law.
What Cruz really needs to release are records on how he financed his college education. This is the what Obama absolutely refuses to declassify, wonder why!
I’m sure that you know the founders put a clause in the Constitution, making every citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of Constitution eligible to be President.
If you didn’t know that, read Article II. If you did know that, you should be ashamed for what you are trying to do.
If Ted Cruz decides to run for the presidency and he’s the best conservative and strongest candidate running, I’ll be supporting him to the HILT!! FUBO!!
Huh?
Congress has the Constitutional power to write laws to determine who may be a "natural born Citizen?"
Since when?
Please cite that authority in the Constitution.
North American Union! Include Mexico and we need not have to worry about illegals. Invade and give the downtroden peons some rights! Kick out the 400 families that run everything and bring freedom to Mexico.
Like all laws, the U.S. Code is based on the constitution and, as we all know:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” — Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Loosen your obamaroid kneepads, obamaroid.
Cite the Constitutional authority that gives the Congress the power to write laws to determine who may be a “natural born Citizen.”
Since the Constitution states in Article 1 Section 8 as one of the powers of congress is to establish the rules of naturalization.
It was replaced 5 years later by congress who further clarified the rules of naturalization as is their enumerated power.
Well, you got that part correct. However, since you want to make shame a part of this dialog, lets look at the rest of your defective argument.
Article II: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...
My query expressly referred to a child sired by an Englishman at a point in time after adoption of the Constitution, for the sole purpose of avoiding the issue you try to raise (I was tempted to refer to the War of 1812 to underscore my point).
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.