Skip to comments.Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]
Posted on 10/28/2013 7:19:34 AM PDT by Paul46360
click here to read article
Somehow I doubt it........
Obviously you didn’t understand or chose to ignore “common-law” in my post. Can you name any court decision since the adoption of the 14th Amendment that differentiates between an Article 2, Section 1 “Natural Born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen of the United States At Birth?” That is what I meant by definitions “merging.”
For example, here’s a judicial ruling that reflects the merger: U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
What is the legitimate group to send money to in order to support his re-election?
Or his Presidential run?
That line is no place in the text of the Constitution. No matter how much you might believe it, and no matter how much sense it makes, and it does, that line is not in the Constitution anyplace, so it becomes unenforceable.
Nowhere did I say it was “in the Constitution.” It was simply the impetus for the wording of the Article II Section 2 requirements for president, as opposed to the wording for requirements for senators and representatives.
“If he wasnt a U.S. Citizen he could not have attended the Punahou School in Honolulu from 5th grade through 12th, Occidental College, Columbia or Harvard Law without having and then renewing F-1 (foreign student) student visas.”
Not true. Obama landed in Hawaii in 1971 as an unaccompanied minor with foreign nationality. He was taken into protective custody by Border Patrol.
At that point, a hearing was scheduled and he could be deported or appeal for asylum. Most children abandoned at the border are granted asylum. Eventually, they become permanent resident aliens (green card holders).
Green card holders are in the country legally and entitled to attend school without a visa. The Privacy Act protects green card holders from exposure. Obama’s status as a green card holder cannot be exposed without his written permission or a Court subpoena.
When Obama arrived in Indonesia, he was too old to become an Indonesian citizen via adoption and adoption was the only way to become an Indonesian citizen as a child.
The law in question is Indonesian Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Assuming an adoption of Obama took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.
(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.”
Barack Obama was already six years old when he moved to Indonesia. In the absence of adoption papers and evidence of formal renunciation of U.S. Citizenship by a six year old at the U.S. Consulate in Jakarta, your theory fails.
Anyone who is granted Permanent Legal Resident status (green card) has files documenting their status that are available under Freedom of Information Act requests. There is also no record of Obama arriving as an unaccompanied minor and being placed under the jurisdiction of the Border Patrol.
I have written this over and over on these citizen threads. The child of my American son, was born in England and his mother is English. His birth was registered at the American Embassy the day of his birth and he was issued a regular US passport. He is a natural born citizen of the US. His birth was also registered that day at the English hospital. He may run for president of the US if he denounces his English citizenship - he may run for Prime Minister of England if he denounces his American citizenship.
When he comes to the states, he gets in the American Citizen line - his mother has to get in the Foreign line. There is no difference between the citizenship of my grandson and Cruz. Both were born of an American parent outside the US. My grandson will go to college in America as the American citizen he is.
Of course you are not going to get a response to this as these trolls have no definition to offer. It is just one dork on the internet thinking they know, making up a personal definition, then passing it on to another dork.
” Obamas status as a green card holder cannot be exposed without his written permission or a Court subpoena.”
Then how do you know about it?
Jim has been very easy with them but I think his patience will end soon.
Gee, sorry I wasn’t sitting in the basement of my parents house in my PJ’s waiting for someone to ping me! Calling me names is not going to get me to offer you anything in the form of a substantive response.
“offer you anything in the form of a substantive response.”
Nothing does anyway.
Where are you coming from? I have never exchanged anything with you past but you seem to have me all figured out. Have a good one.
Your post #214. It’s all I need to know about you. Stop crying ‘victim!’ and take responsibility for your own words.
LOL! The Constitution gives Congress every authority to define the criteria for a naturalized citizen, but it no more gives them the abiliy to define an Article II 'natural born citizen' than it does to define 'arms' in the 2nd Amendment or 'Liberty' in the Preamble.
There is only one clause that enumerates such an authority of definition...and it has nothing to do with citizenship....
Who’s crying? I didn’t call you names, but you saw fit without a single exchange between us in the past to go ahead and start name calling. Why would I want to even begin a debate with you? You want to learn more there is plenty in my posting history, have fun.
What about foreign peasants?
(This is the article. I have put it here because sometimes articles are moved from their original site.)
Sarah Helene Duggin from the Catholic University of America looks at potential foreign-born presidential candidates like Ted Cruz and a possible emerging consensus among scholars about their eligibility for the White House.
The 2016 presidential election is more than three years away, but potential candidates and their supporters are already contemplating the next campaign. Senator Ted Cruz of Texasnow well-known for his role in the recent federal shutdownand Californias celebrity former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are among those whose names are circulating. But neither Cruz nor Schwarzenegger was born in the United States, and the Constitution provides that [n]o person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
For Cruz, Schwarzenegger, and a number of other potential candidates, the Natural Born Citizenship Clause raises a critical question: Is anyone born outside the United States constitutionally eligible to serve as president?
Senator John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, faced the same question with respect to his natural-born citizenship status in his 2008 presidential bid, and purported concerns about President Obamas constitutional qualifications led birthers to file lawsuits challenging his natural-born credentials on the basis of a variety of far-fetched theories during the last several years. A new natural-born citizenship debate is already simmering, and it seems likely to heat up a great deal before the 2016 election takes place.
The Constitution does not define the term natural born citizen. Even so, Governor Schwarzenegger is clearly out of the running. Given that he was born in Austria to Austrian parents, there is no basis for arguing that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
For Senator Cruzwho was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban fatherthe question is more complicated. There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born. The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship requirement. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court rulingor a constitutional amendmentthe parameters of the clause remain uncertain.
Ted Cruz’s Shutdown Showdown Creates Divide Among
The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787. At the time, as Justice Joseph Story later explained in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, many of the framers worried about ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen, Jay wrote.
Washington thanked Jay for his hints in a reply dated September 2, 1787. Shortly thereafter, the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.
While it is possible to trace the origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause, it is harder to determine its intended scopewho did the framers mean to exclude from the presidency by this language? The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.
There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.
Actor and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attends the premiere of the movie “Escape
Although subsequent naturalization acts dropped the natural born language, members of later Congresses proposed many bills and resolutions designed to clarify, limit, or eliminate the Natural Born Citizenship Clause; none succeeded. In April 2008, however, amid challenges to Senator McCains eligibility to serve as president, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
The resolutionco-sponsored by a number of McCains Senate colleagues, including rival presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obamaundoubtedly offered Senator McCain some comfort, but it had no real constitutional significance.
Challenges to presidential qualifications are not new. In 1964, for example, questions arose as to the natural-born credentials of Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, because he was born in Arizona prior to statehood. In 1968, legal actions were threatened against former Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents in Mexico, when he sought the Republican nomination.
Despite the shadow that lawsuits may cast over a presidential bid, the obstacles to successful litigation of natural-born citizenship challenges are formidable. These matters raise a wide array of justiciability concerns. Standing issues led to the dismissal of lawsuits filed in federal courts in New Hampshire and California challenging Senator McCains natural-born status in 2008 (Hollander v. McCain, Robinson v. Bowen), as well as to the dismissal of claims brought by a Guyana-born naturalized citizen who argued that the Fifth and 14th Amendments effectively repealed the natural born citizenship clause (Hassan v. Federal Election Committee).
Standing is not the only obstacle to adjudication of natural-born citizenship issues. Claims that a candidate lacks the requisite natural-born citizenship credentials are unlikely to ripen until a nominee is chosen, or perhaps even elected, and federal courts may be reluctant to delve into the merits of challenges to a candidates natural-born citizenship status on political question grounds.
Ann Coulter’s Political Crush on Ted CruzPlay video
What can we expect if Senator Cruz or another similarly situated candidate runs for president in 2016? Undoubtedly, the controversy will continue with passionate advocates on both sides of the issue. A scholarly consensus is emerging, however, that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II.
This consensus rests on firm foundations. First, given Jays letter and the language of the 1790 naturalization act, it seems evident that the framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad. Second, the 14-year residency requirement Article II also imposes as a presidential prerequisite ensures that, regardless of their place of birth, would-be presidents must spend a significant time living in the United States before they can run for office.
Finally, the natural born citizenship clause is both an anomaly and an anachronism. The way in which the clause differentiates among United States citizens is contrary to the overall spirit of the Constitution; the risk that foreign nobility will infiltrate our government is long past; and place of birth is a poor surrogate for loyalty to ones homeland in our increasingly mobile society and our ever more interconnected world. The best solution would be to amend the Constitution, as many legislators on both sides of the aisle have proposed over the years. In the absence of an amendment, the clause should be narrowly interpreted.
Sarah Helene Duggin is Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Public Policy Program for the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America. She has authored several academic articles on the natural-born citizenship proviso.
Obama’s birth father might have been a Kenyan but his sperm father was a SE Asian communist cult guru named Muhhamid Subuh who mama Stanley Ann dilly dallied with in early travels to SE Asia which she loved so much.
And little Steven Barnard Dunham was born in Canada ...
If the Laws and historical records of this Nation doesn’t apply to Obama such might be an applicable criterion. However, as for me I believe the laws and history of this Nation as established by the Founders do apply as presented in the Constitution. As a vet of WWII and with a brother killed in WWII defending this Constitution I take the Constitution very seriously and believe that although written for a much younger Nation, what the Founders intended then should be the Nation’s bedrock for today.
Question! I have not any recall of the name Steven Barnard Dunham. Please clue me in on that person. I would guess it has something to do with the Dunham family in Obama’s history.
I haven’t heard that name outside of FR.
Do provide more info; FRmail if necessary.
The controversy centers at/in the Constitution which/where specifically by 1st and 2nd Articles there is a specific delineation in wording between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’. For years politicians have used obfuscation to circumvent the difference in wording. The first successful one I know of was when Arthur who had a questionable US birthright succeeded McKinley who was assassinated. The second successful one I know of is Obama who had his path cleared by Pelosi vouching for Obama’s qualifications for POTUSA. It is my understanding that Obama was sired by a SE Asian guru named Muhammed Subuh with a young filly not yet 18 years of age named Stanley Ann Dunham. I don’t believe that eligibility for POTUSA is as Constitutionally as simple as just an either or situation as many others take the matter.
But, wasn’t Obama’s mother an American citizen?
I'm convinced that claims of Cruz's alleged ineligibility are a non-starter in legal circles, and I'm rather bewildered as to why they would be seized on in such apparently knee-jerk fashion.
It seems like a slam dunk to me. How is Cruz, an American citizen at and by birth, not Natural Born?
First, I believe the Constitution specifically delineates/notes/calls for a ‘natural born’ citizen as in Article II as compared to/from just ‘citizen’ in Article I as matter of facts. This delineation was purposeful and intended by the Framers. Second, I don’t believe it is knee-jerk to form an opinion based on ones own sincere look at the factors involved. Third, in my opinion Cruz’s family/heritage parallels Obama’s as to parentage and as such it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future to the voting public as differentiated from political hide-and-seek by sides involved.
We know the answer and it has nothing to do with the BIBLE.
What I like is how the Trump phenomenon is preparing the electorate for Cruz.
I don’t think Trump lasts the six months until the first primary. But what he really does is hit home that business as usual is a corrupt, do-nothing swamp, and that regular, bland politician niceties are insufficient for getting done what needs to be done.
That leaves voters looking for someone else who has the appropriate impatience with business as usual, and who has demonstrated that he isn’t “one of them”. It makes Cruz’s tough stands against the senate leadership look heroic, and Cruz’s voice and rhetoric, however, still civil.
After Trump, how perfect! Cruz has been raising the money needed, is there in the running in the polls, and could pick up where Trump leaves off—looking the more refined and civil when he does so.