Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
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.
**snip**
This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.
As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, it probably never will.
The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.” **snip**
want to go on record again objecting to the term “birther.” If the term were confined to conspiracy theorists, that would be one thing. But it has become a tool to shut down even legitimate debate.
The term was used as a pejorative as part of a deliberate Obama campaign strategy to shut down debate on his issues **snip**
5. The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant **snip**
6. “natural born Citizen” usage at the time of drafting the Constitution is uncertain **snip**
7. British common and statutory law doesn’t solve the problem **snip**
8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
From his conclusion: This is a very confusing area as to which scholars acting in good faith disagree, although there is a clear weight of authority. But those disagreements, in a sense, are the solution.
A reasonable reading of the plain text of the Constitution supports Rubio, Jindal and Cruz being “natural born Citizen[s]” because they were citizens by birth. There is no clear, demonstrable intent otherwise from the Framers or clear, commonly understood use of the term to the contrary at the time of drafting the Constitution. The British term “natural born Subject” as well as concepts of “natural law” were not clearly relied upon by the Framers, and are in themselves not clearly contradictory to this plain reading of the text.
The burden should be on those challenging otherwise eligible candidates to demonstrate through clear and convincing historical evidence and legal argument why such persons should be disqualified. That has not happened so far, and if two hundred years of scholarship is any indication, it never will happen.
The ultimate arbiter on the issue likely is to be voters, not Supreme Court Justices.
How can people who support the Kenyan have the balls to argue anyone elses NBC status?
So what should I call the useful idiots who insist that Ted Cruz can't be President?
If you need to argue or comment please read the article, it is filled with much more information than I can set here, and is very good.
Yes, it concludes Cruz is eligible, but read it, particularly if you are an eligibility geek.
Have at it.
“The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution...”
Which would indicate it has a very special and significant meaning.....
The currant occupant of the White House is under an exceedingly dark cloud when it comes to birth and origins. His minions ought to know better than to make a stink over the subject.
This constitutional scholar/attorney with impeccable credentials explains in 6 minutes what a true natural born Citizen is that the framers of the presidential clause intended to hold the office of the presidency. Listen very good and let it soak in.
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
I do understand what you're saying for a few of them....:-)
*****************************
A reasonable question, but we are not dealing with reasonable people.
Exactly ... are there not decisions on record that say EVERY word in the Constitution has meaning and those words are not to be dismissed lightly?
AS the article explains, you won’t find it defined ANYWHERE, only barely hinted at.
Read the article before you say such things.
/johnny
Spamming before you even read it. Shame on you.
And after all that, can we PLEASE stop posting page after page after page on this subject?
I don’t think anyone is changing anyone’s mind.
At this point it is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Incorrect, but lots of words are cool.
A great article for your perusal. SOC, you need not comment if you so desire....:-)
I intend to sue the moron for the carpal tunnel injury he just gave me.
Liberty amendment Idea.
To be eligible for president one must have spent 16 years out of their first 20 years of life within the borders of the United States.
The “Formative Years” Amendment.
Because if you grew up in the United States you are more likely to have allegiance to the country.
There it is: The concession of defeat by means of ad-hominem attack, and by refusal to argue or even consider the case presented.
OUTSTANDING POST!
You can cut "useful idiots" in half?
Great post. It explains in precise detail why Cruz is not eligible along with Jindal and Rubio. Constitutional attorney Herb Titus would agree that Cruz, Jindal and Rubio are statutory citizens. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature). The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
/johnny
Zotted before I could track him down to do so. LOL
Thank you Mod.
The case has been considered, and Jim made it clear that there won't be any crap of attacking Cruz over the birther issue.
/johnny
But I have read it. I follow the Legal Insurrection blog.
I posted my essay because it comprehensively refutes Jacobson's thesis.
Since we must construe the Constitution (or any law for that matter) so as to give meaning to all terms when possible and reasonable, we have to assume that “natural born” means something, and was not just an error or excess verbiage.
So who peed in your cornflakes this morning?
By my words comprehensively prove my thesis. Your words...not so much.
Maybe Cruz can be President but I won't be voting for him because having another citizen of a Commonwealth nation in the White House (Obama was born a Commonwealth citizen courtesy of his father's Commonwealth citizenship) is not something I want to entertain. Let him stay in the Senate where he can do some good and let's have a 100% American conservative in the White House for 2016.
/johnny
Brilliant minds think alike. :-)
I have made this same point over and over since the discussions began here on Free Republic.
The burden of proof of ineligibility lies on those asserting it. The evidence must be clear and convincing and if the case were even given a hearing in court, then all reasonable doubt would be given to Ted Cruz.
Hence, there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that any court will determine that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, or as Mr. Jacobson noted "natural born Citizen" with the capitals only on the term Citizen.
So those who want to insist that Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen will have to be their own judge and jury on the subject.
If denying Ted Cruz his rightful inheritance as a natural born Citizen is more important than saving the country from Tryanny, then vote for someone else. Vote For the GOP-E candidate. Vote for Hillary. But don't use Free Republic as your forum to infect the unwary with your insane notions that Ted Cruz is not a NBC. He is. Get over it!
Everyone.... Read this article!
Your statement is an emotion-based rejection of an argument. It presents not facts, no logic, and fails to address the issue on its merits. As such, it is meaningless on each and every level.
So when it’s Cruz V. Hillary, you are gonna waste your vote for some third party? Super lame.
One can hope. Crazy does not belong on FR.
They are “useful” to the democrats (and RINOs running for the Republican nomination like Christie and Jeb).
/johnny
You would destroy the village in order to save it? One cannot 'save the country from tyranny' by violating the Constitution whose strict observance is the only mechanism that prevents tyranny. That's a logical contradiction, and logical contradictions are absolute falsifications.
Thank you, PM.
No logic in that statement.
” . Let him stay in the Senate where he can do some good and let’s have a 100% American conservative in the White House for 2016. “
Let me know when you find a so-called AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE
other than Cruz. There aren’t any.
I was thinking more of the other half.
A statement that cites no fact, no sources, no evidence cannot, by definition, be 'factual.'
My essay cites numerous sources and facts, all matters of public record that are independently verifiable. The contrast between what I wrote and your vacuous opinion could not be more stark in that regard.
You might want to take it up with the management.
/johnny
The problem with the assertions in #5 and #6 is that they are fundamentally incorrect. In the first naturalization act passed by the first Congress and signed by George Washington, the words “natural born citizen” are used. Further, the section that contains those words clearly show that NBC status is tied to status obtained at birth and that such a birth does not require birth on US soil or inside US jurisdiction.
Thanks very much.
Ted Cruz for POTUS 2016!
It should be clear from the emphasized and underlined words, that the Framers meant the restrictions of "natural-born citizen" to be the "posterity" of "ourselves" (We the People).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
They wanted the highest office of the land to be "secure" by limiting it to the "posterity" of "We the People of the United States."
-PJ
It was repealed 5 years later and replaced with another Act that had the natural born Citizen language removed. The Naturalization Act of 1790 is null & void.
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.