Posted on 08/20/2013 9:18:54 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Questions about Cruz’s eligibility have everything to do with interpretation of the law; the questions about Obama’s eligibility had everything to do with a dispute over the underlying facts — more specifically, conspiracy theories about whether the president was actually born in the United States, as he claimed, and whether he somehow forged a birth certificate that said he was born in Hawaii.
Obama was also born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, meaning if he was in fact born outside the United States, the situations might be parallel. But birthers weren’t making a legal argument about Obama; they were arguing the facts about where he was born and accusing him of perpetrating a massive fraud.
In Cruz’s case, nobody is disputing the underlying facts of the case — that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother who was a United States citizen. As we wrote back in March, that makes him a U.S. citizen himself, but it’s not 100 percent clear that that is the same thing as a “natural born citizen” — the requirement for becoming president.
Most scholars think it’s the same thing, and the Congressional Research Service said in 2011 that someone like Cruz “most likely” qualifies to run for president. But to this point, there is no final word from the courts, because while foreign-born candidates have run — including George Romney and John McCain — none of them has actually won and had his eligibility challenged.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States" Oh, those silly founding fathers. Look at the ink they wasted repeating themselves. Oh, wait, they weren't so dumb and they didn't think We the People were so dumb not to know the definition of "is" either. By making the distinction, they have indeed made it 100% clear there's a difference between a citizen and a NBC.
So what did the Supreme Court have to say about it?
Not necessarily. SADO hadn't lived here the required 5 years past her 14th birthday to pass on her US citizenship when he was born. With neither parent able to give him US citizenship, the only way he could have it is if he were actually born here or became a naturalized citizen and neither of those gets him NBC status.
Remember who was on the Senate committee that vetted McLame but didn’t vet the Kenyan? McCaskill. She has tried time and again to get the NBC thrown out of the Constitution. Apparently, crowning Mr. Ineligible was easier than striking down Article II.
It seems that the 'Rat strategy will be to knock out any possible Cruz presidential bid on the NBC issue as soon as possible, while at the same time covering up for Obama's multiple document frauds. This WaPo article was timely from the 'rat perspective, since Cruz's production of a bona fide BC this week. In addition, they are probably troubled about House legislation to be introduced shortly by Rep. Stockman and some other Republicans calling for an investigation into possible Obama document fraud and the related Obama constitutional eligibility issues. (Yes, it seems like a long-awaited breakthrough has occurred.)
Great.
Then the neo-marxist left, being headed by the non-natural citizen obama/soetoro, cannot claim Cruz is ineligible .
.
Excellent point, bgill. They were requiring presidents born after the adoption of the Constitution to be Natural Born Citizens, but required only citizenship at the time of the adaption of the Constitution for those prospective presidents who were already alive at that time.
And there is little doubt that by "Natural Born Citizen," they knew exactly what they meant: the Vattel definition, with which they were familiar.
Yes.
“...citizenS...”
When plural, the statement is correct.
According to the law, yes it does. Cruz is eligible.
Can you link us up a bit on that? I certainly wish I could be confident of such a bold move from Stockman, et al.
There are two elements:
(1) The "creation" of the document
(2)What's in the document (s).
The fact that the document is a forgery really has little to do with the information presented by it, which IMO, cannot be proven or disproven. That's OK. The BC forgery is enough. And now that Reggie Love has said that "Barry found his real BC," it starts to get surreal.
In the related "Constitutional Eligibility" matter, it is important IMO, to point out that the SCOTUS has no power to remove a sitting President.
IOW, if the SCOTUS should:
(a) shift its haunches and decide to rule,
and (b) if they find the guy ineligible, (which ain't a slam-dunk)
it would still be up to Congress to use the info to impeach and convict him. Or not. Removal is Congress' call, and with a short-timer to deal with, it may well not be worth the effort and upheaval.
That is why I have turned into an annoying one-trick pony on the issue of the SCOTUS accepting an appeal on Art.II eligibility. For them to answer the question they have been so studiously avoiding places very little actual onus upon them. And, with a definition in hand, we could consider the eligibility of other candidates without a long drawn out distracting series of brawls, which IMO, would guarantee a Democrat victory.
“...there’s a difference between a citizen and a NBC.”
Not really a difference.
NBC is a subset of all citizens. They are not mutually exclusive and contrasting them as ‘different’ may not be the best description.
To be eligible for President (and vice president) you must be a Citizen. Citizen is the noun of the statement in Article II, Section 1.
What CHARACTERISTICS must this Citizen possess?
They must be a natural Citizen AND they must be a born Citizen.
Citizen is a proper noun in its use in this part of the Constitution. Putting two adjectives in front of this proper noun did not create some unique new term that had to be added to Webster’s dictionary. It merely refined the subset of the pool of Citizens.
Many say that being a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Well - almost. That is a born Citizen. The word natural is not needed to equivocate the two. That in itself shows the fallacy that citizenship at birth is the same as natural born citizen. Citizenship at birth = born citizen.
So where does natural come in? The Immigration act of 1790 gives us insight. Children of citizen parents seems a very clear criteria. Citizenship descends from father to child in the day. Who are you loyal to if you are a PATriot? Your fathers homeland - hence the root of the term.
The constitution did not attempt to define mutually exclusive sets of citizens. It merely provides a specific subset of the citizens eligible for the highest office.
I see what you are getting at....
I pledge full throated opposition to any “democrat birthers”.
The statement says parents (that is plural).
The law says parent. Singular.
If you need a man made law to be a citizen - you ain’t a ‘natural’.
We'll see. I predict should Senator Cruz toss his hat into the ring (as it certainly appears he's going to) he will face no serious legal challenges regarding his eligibility.
Agreed!
Good point bgill and Carp and all of you who have seen “fog job” play out. The “Senate Committee” was the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was really the Obama campaign committee. There was not vetting going on. This committee was the hearing for Senate Resolution 511 in April 2008 providing cover for McCain's candidacy, since Democrats had thoroughly investigated McCain's ineligibility for eight years and two lawsuits. With McCain ‘entitled’ to run, there would be no questions asked about Obama.
Recall that SR 511 was preceded in February 2008 by Senate Bill 2678, sponsored by Obama and campaign co-chair McCaskill, , the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. It was also aimed at making McCain eligible, but FAILED to pass. This writer believes such an amendment is warranted, but there weren't enough votes for it to leave the Senate Judiciary Committee, thus no chance of amending the Constitution. But Amending Article II Section 1, the NBC provision, was attempted seven times between 2001 and 2007, four attempts, two by John Conyers and one each by Menendez and Frank, all of which would have made Obama eligible had they succeeded. Democrats weren't alone in wanting an amendment. Rohrabacher, Nickles and Orin Hatch (for Schwarzenegger) also filed amendments. They all know the truth and are willing to hide, rather than preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
SR 511 is a resolution with no force of law. The issue, as stated by patsy and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff was: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.” Chertoff avoided the “born on our soil” component because McCain wasn't.
Obama’s Harvard Adviser, Constructional Law professor and campaign committee member Larry Tribe wrote a letter with the expected sophistry of a law professor, citing a 1790 Nationality Act making the foreign born children of two citizen parents natural born citizens, but not mentioning that the 1790 Act was entirely repealed in 1795 with the term ‘natural born citizen’ replace with just ‘citizen’. Both Acts were signed by George Washington, who changed the requirement in the pre-ratification constitution from ‘citizen’ to ‘natural born citizen’ at the suggestion of John Jay.
We live in ‘interesting times’ when supposed constitutional authorities, selling books for three hours every day, while attacking anyone citing Supreme Court cases and the words of founders and framers, about which he states “I don't know much about citizenship law.”
Our other avid learner and collector of books of historical significance, Glen Beck, has his news team claim that we let Chester Arthur be president and George Romney and Fremont run for president so 'the law is settled'. Romney and Fremont did not win and didn't have their eligibility tested. Charles Evans Hughes was questioned in our largest legal journal, Chicago Legal News, in 1916, Volume 49, and future FDR Ambassador made it clear that Hughes would have been challenged for having been born to British subjects, even though born in New York, and a Supreme Court Justice. He lost to Woodrow Wilson but would have been challenged, just as Hillary will challenge a Cruz or Rubio if she loses to one of them.
We let Calero, McCain and Obama run and none were natural born citizens. Chester Arthur was never suspected or charged with having a British father, Calero was not a citizen, and we know about Obama and McCain. Leo Donofrio, exploring the law in depth, discovered that Arthur, who always had a Vermont birth certificate, but hid it and burned it just before he died, used the missing birth certificate to distract from the truth.
What is the truth? We don't need rumors or suspicion. Every word must be assumed to have meaning. Barack told us he is a “native-born citizen of the U.S.” Were he a natural born citizen, he was a candidate for president, he would have told us that. American Indians were native-born, and not made citizens by the 14th Amendment, which nowhere contains the term ‘natural born citizen’. Barack told us he is a naturalized citizen, naturalized because his mother was a citizen. Our president must be a natural born citizen unless we amend the Constitution.
Here are two of dozens of clear recitations of the truth Beck, Levin, all legislators and all judges are unwilling, or afraid to address. Nothing but the burning of our books can erase these records, though digital media have been corrupted to hide the truth: Ohio Congressman, Judge, and Author of the 14th Amendment provided the House with this clarification, explaining that his Amendment does not affect Article II Section 1:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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….
Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the decision that depended upon the only Constitutional definition of who were citizen, because anyone a natural born citizen is also a citizen, before the 14th Amendment. That made the definition precedent rather than just ‘dictum’, a comment of opinion:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The Waite quote can be confusing if you don't read the case. The only citizen defined in the Constitution in 1787 were natural born citizen. Waite is using that fact to declare Virginia Minor a 'citizen'. Since she was claiming the 14th Amendment gave her voting rights, her status as a citizen was essential to the decision. In 1789 each sovereign state had its own rules, many differing, especially concerning slaves, from others. That could not be resolved and we needed to be united under a constitution, so 'An Uniform Rule for Naturalization' was deferred by Article 1 Section 8. So Waite refers only to undoubted definitions, 'natural born citizens,' and 'aliens or foreigners'. That is our law. Birth certificates are not in evidence, but our laws are. Minor v. Happersett was cited twenty five times, including in Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg. There is no other interpretation. Law cannot re-interpret a provision of the Constitution. Immigration law is based upon the 14th Amendment, which never mentions natural born citizenship. This is all a smoke screen.
As Glen Beck used to say, read original sources and trust what you read. Beck and Levin say much that makes sense, but they show their ignorance, or sloppiness, or fear by failing to address the Constitution as clarified by our Supreme Court and dozens of our real authorities, from Dr. David Ramsay to Ben Franklin, who got the first English translations of Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ sent to his colleagues in the Colonies in the 1760s, to Jefferson who founded our first law school at William and Mary in 1779, and made Vattel its first required text, to George Washington, who agreed with Hamilton that Vattel was the most trusted authority on law, and who opened his office in New York in 1789 with only one book on his desk, Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’.
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.