FReepathon Day 61 ... PLEASE Make Your Donation Today!
NOW Less than $2.6to GO!!!
$25 Keeps FR ALIVE
God bless and keep you all.
Posted on 08/30/2013 12:02:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Yep
THANK YOU and AMEN!! Our Constitution has been ignored
and subverted in many ways lately. It would be wonderful if
it was followed to the ‘T’, but it hasn’t been for a while
now. The rules have changed and the hour is late. I do not
want another conservative to slip through our fingers.
Fight like a GGRRRRLL! and fight dirty, if need be.
If Ted Cruz is in, I’m in. Thanks to Sarah Palin and Mark
Levin for backing and promoting him, too.
“If Cruz can be born to an American Mother and a non-American father, outside of the country and not in a soveriegn territory or military base then he is not NBC.”
Got a legal citation for that? I do, and it says he is a natural born citizen:
8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States.
We are worried about cruz when we have an imposter already seated in the white hut
b
Looks like he’s a natural born citizen according to this author and I like his credentials as opposed to the usual internet blogger. Mark Levin likes him too. And I have much more faith in Mark Levin than your average anonymous sea lawyer/blogger.
CATO’s Ilya Shapiro:
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Before joining Cato, he was a special assistant/advisor to the Multi-National Force in Iraq on rule of law issues and practiced international, political, commercial, and antitrust litigation at Patton Boggs and Cleary Gottlieb. Shapiro has contributed to a variety of academic, popular, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, L.A. Times, USA Today, National Law Journal, Weekly Standard, New York Time Online, and National Review Online, and from 2004 to 2007 wrote the “Dispatches from Purple America” column for TCS Daily.com. He also regularly provides commentary for various media outlets, including CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, Univision and Telemundo, The Colbert Report, NPR, and American Public Media’s Marketplace. Shapiro has provided testimony to Congress and state legislatures and, as coordinator of Cato’s amicus brief program, filed more than 100 “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court. He lectures regularly on behalf of the Federalist Society and other groups, is a member of the Legal Studies Institute’s board of visitors at The Fund for American Studies, was an inaugural Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute, and has been an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School. Before entering private practice, Shapiro clerked for Judge E. Grady Jolly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, while living in Mississippi and traveling around the Deep South. He holds an A.B. from Princeton University, an M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School (where he became a Tony Patiño Fellow). Shapiro is a member of the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a native speaker of English and Russian, is fluent in Spanish and French, and is proficient in Italian and Portuguese.
I have three NBC grandchildren who were all born to my American citizen daughter and her Caymanian husband on Grand Cayman Island. Each carries two passports: one is American, the other is Caymanian. They are NBC of each country.
Should one of them ever seek the office of POTUS, that one would simply need to renounce his or her Caymanian citizenship.
:: is defined based on at least one parent who is an American citizen ::
Here is where I depart. The founders included the NBC phrase as was common knowledge among the citizens of the colonies. NBC meant born of citizens parentS[sic-plural] on US soil or abroad while in service to the US.
When born to a parent of different nationality, does that confer citizenship to the other country?
Look at it in the inverse, what is the ^full^ citizenship status of a child born in New York City in 1776 of a father who is a US citizen and a mother who is a French colonialist from New Orleans?
Don’t we recognize the Frencgh citizenship of that child (dual citizenship) and, at some point, have that child accept or renounce their French rights?
Do you consider this child eligible for POTUS?
Someone who knows the inside said he has a problem - He can not win. And the goal is to win.
Maybe R’s have quit trying to win.
Actually, the early laws don't say that. If you study the wording, you'll realize that only the father had to be a US citizen.
Did they meet the residency requirement set by congress for naturalized citizens?
If they are still citizens of the US they must have.
nbCs do not have such a requirement.
All that having been said, is it possible for FR to meaningfully participate by organizing for Ted Cruz? There are other candidates (always) who I could support but I would just as soon get the primary contest over as soon as possible to avoid the 2012 disaster of having all too many good candidates to dilute the vote and allow Mittler to be nominated.
This time, Job #1 is destroying the GOP-E $$$ stranglehold on nominations. Let's send them and their well-funded lies packing. Let us encourage militant conservative populism as our standard for 2016. For POTUS. For Senate. For Congress. For governorships. For state legislators.
God bless you and FR. Thanks for being you.
Since you cited a Congressional law this is easy - not a natural citizen.
They depend on positive (vs. natural) law for citizenship.
Does everyone just want to strike the word natural from Article II, Section 1?
1401 describe a ‘born citizen’. That is only half the equation.
Ditto. Cruz’s mom was/is an American that makes him a citizen wherever he was born and qualifyied for the presidency.
I’m glad Levin didn’t jump on the NB bandwagon since it was liberals who started this as a distraction.
There it is. It's not complicated at all. Yet I'm beginning to think folks would still argue Ted's status if an angel came down from heaven affirming his eligibility.
(Thanks for the ping, SoConPubbie)
What on earth are you talking about?
They are natural born US citizens.
Period.
I’ll not discount your conclusion but...
Are conservatives willing to suffer the “whipping post” when the communistas make their cry “not eligible, not eleigible”?
To the commies, Obamugabe will be past history and the “fault” of conservatives for not being more aggressive in determining his eligibility. In the words of Rachel Jeantel, “That be old school!”
We keep holding out our pecker for the communistas to take a whack at.
You are correct because of the simple "grandfathered" sentence that appears in [Article II; Section I]:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this 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.
Thus....according to the framers...... there indeed was a difference between NBC and a "plain" ole' citizen....otherwise they would not have differentiated the two.
Natural born = two citizen parents.... born where ever; Native born = born within the territorial limits of the country to non-citizen parents or born abroad to one citizen parent; Naturalized = Citizenship by statute. Three types.....always has been!
FWIW..............I think Ted Cruz would be a magnificent President. He's a magnificent Senator....already! But.....he is not a Natural Born Citizen. So what? Neither is the clown who sits there now!
I believe a precedent has been set.
“They depend on positive (vs. natural) law for citizenship.”
So such thing as “positive law”. See my previous post about the needed use of “natural” in the Constitution.
“1401 describe a ‘born citizen’. That is only half the equation.”
Nope. “natural born citizen” = “citizen at birth”.
Thank you very much. I’m hoping Cruz decides to run. Also like you, I’m hoping that the FReepers and the tea party and all grassroots conservatives can settle quickly on the strongest conservative running so we don’t split our vote six ways to Sunday.
God bless.
Emmerich de Vattel, author of the Law of Nations was Swiss, not French. You know, like Michele Bachman! :-)
“As I’ve stated elsewhere on this forum many times, I have infinitely more confidence in Mark Levin and the CATO Institute than I do in legions of internet sea lawyers and bloggers.”
8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States.
"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."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Statutory citizenship does not automatically render one Constitutionally eligible for president.
(I was sworn in as an honorary Texan by Hayden Fry.)
Bump that again.
“does not necessarily imply “
Meaning that it also does not imply the converse, either, that a statute does not guarantee citizenship for constitutional purposes, either. This is a State Department document, not one of controlling legal authority. It was written by a State Department employee. That was a lawyer statement claiming that other controlling legal authorities settle the matter and not that document.
But how many people of today, even Texans, and ‘specially ladies, know who Hayden Fry is??
And this is no knock against ladies, since I are one.
Hayden Fry, former long-time football coach at SMU.
AND, no, I didn’t need to look it up.
“Should one of them ever seek the office of POTUS, that one would simply need to renounce his or her Caymanian citizenship.”
__
Actually, I’m not sure that’s true. While most countries permit their citizens to renounce their citizenship (and I trust that the Caymanians do), “[s]ome countries” (at least according to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship) “may not allow or do not recognize renunciation of citizenship or establish administrative procedures that are essentially impossible to complete.”
Since we would not want a foreign government’s laws to have the power to block an otherwise eligible Presidential candidate, I doubt that actual renunciation of foreign citizenship is required.
if you listen to the man speak, you know that's not true. He's one of the few that can instantly make an MSM interviewer look like a fool, and would shred any demonrat in a debate.
NBC.
Both my wife and I were born in the US. Both of my children were born in Germany while I was stationed overseas. Both of my children have US State Dept birth certificates that are headed “Record of the Birth of a US Citizen born Overseas.” It is hard for me to believe that my children are not natural born citizens.
I agree with you, if someone HAD to renounce citizenship in an additional country in order to have presidential eligibility here, that would mean that country’s laws have some influence on our laws, which they do not.
Ours operate independently of others.
But though not required, the holder of dual citizenship can certainly choose to renounce the one he does not actually want.
Thanks for the ping. Great post JR.
They are natural born citizens.
Thanks for the heads up, good article.
Nonetheless, it shows that the Founders and George Washington, were perfectly comfortable with citizenship based upon one parent rather than both.
The considered that citizenship to be at birth “by right” and “by blood descent”.
I believe that to be true as well.
Mail.
By naturalization law in 8 USC § 1401
Personally, Øbongo and the dhimmis set the bar (about ten feet underground) and we would be cheating ourselves not to exploit that to elect a true conservative.
I don’t care if he’s from Mars - if he runs I’m supporting him!
“the holder of dual citizenship can certainly choose to renounce the one he does not actually want.”
__
Certainly. My point, though, was that choosing to renounce one’s (foreign) citizenship may not result in an actual renunciation if the other country doesn’t permit it.
That leads to the odd but valid conclusion that any country can declare anyone in the world to be their citizen at any time, and there may be nothing the person can do about it.
Of course, if they ever try to exercise jurisdiction over that person against his or her will, they can expect to find themselves facing a very formidable enemy.
But every country is the ultimate decision maker on the question of who its citizens are.
What did CATO Institute say about Obama’s POTUS eligibility?
I follow CATO on Twitter and have never seen them analyze Obama’s birth narrative. Did I miss it?
Sorry, but he was never naturalized. Especially not under 1401.
What people are stupidly arguing is that “natural born citizen” should have been stated as “citizen at birth” when the two under English mean the same thing.
” Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Ronald Reagan
Thank you, RR, and sad to say, we are on the verge of losing it all! I have looked at all the possible candidates, and Cruz is WAY ahead of anyone else, regarding
CREDIBILITY,GUTS,ORATORICAL ABILITY; ETHICS, and obvious LOVE for America. Cruz can potentially be the Ronald Reagan of our time.
Whether you’re right or wrong about his eligibility - and I’m sure that will continue to be hotly debated in many quarters - personally I still can’t support him because of his support for immoral, unconstitutional “and then you can kill the baby” “fetal pain” legislation.
If he really does run, because of where I live, I will no doubt have multiple in-person, eyeball-to-eyeball opportunities to attempt to dissuade Senator Cruz from this compromised position. Which I will take advantage of.
There’s a lot to like about the man, no doubt about it. I think he’s a decent, sincere person. But this matter is so fundamentally crucial as to be non-negotiable for me.
I’d also love to talk him out of his support for E-Verify. IMO, the last thing we need is another federal database, and a bureaucracy from which American citizens have to get permission to work and earn their daily bread.
Thanks for that. Too many people trying to claim that your family had to have come over on the Mayflower to qualify.
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.