Skip to comments.Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada
Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
click here to read article
Oh I see. Obama has been in office almost FIVE years and there has yet to be a SC ruling that he is not a legal President. Not much happening there.
Cruz is eligible because Obama was elected. Argument ends there. If I refute the fact that Obama was not elected then I can refute Cruz is ineligible. I cant refute that Obama was elected.
The electorate has lowerd the Constitutional bar. Simple.
I think you've called it. From then on, it's the cult of personality.
Fascinating psychology and more than a bit creepy. Happy Halloween.
First, let me say this so you know exactly where I stand:
Ted Cruz was born a U.S. citizen. He is a statutory citizen by birth. I believe he is eligible to the presidency.
I actually have read pretty much everything there is to read on the subject of natural-born citizens: every SCOTUS ruling, every piece of legislation passed or repealed, government policy manuals, and historical & political articles/commentaries/speeches/discussions, etc.
Most FR birthers are good conservatives with good intentions and most of them have read the same material that I have. I’ve been discussing Obama’s eligibility with them since 2008.
Here are some of the finer points of the eligibility dicussion.
- The Wonkg Kim Ark & Happersett SCOTUS rulings indicate that there is only one group of citizens who citizenship status cannot be questioned - those born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. About all other groups, arguments can be and have been made for or against their citizenship status.
- The State Department’s policy manual stipulates that a citzen at birth by statute is not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and eligible to the presidency. (Statutory citizenship granted at birth by Congress may or may not be the same as citizenship granted by the Constitution.)
- The State Department’s policy manual also stipulates that citizens at birth by statute are not considered naturalized because naturalization is a process that takes place after birth. They are citizens, nothing more, nothing less.
Until very recently, I have long been of the opinion that statutory citizens at birth are not natural-born citizens because their citizenship status is a Congressional generosity granted through legislation that can and has been revoked by legislation numerous times. Congress cannot revoke the citizenship of a constitutional, 14th Amendment citizen without that citizen’s consent per SCOTUS.
As you know, the Constitution does not define “natural-born citizen.” It does, however, grant Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. In order to fulfil that power/duty, Congress must first determine who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t. They look to the 14th Amendment for the most obvious answer. Then they must consider various other factors about one’s birth circumstances to decide if someone requires naturalization.
As it stands now, Congress has decided that those to whom they grant citizenship at birth by bloodline (jus sanguinis) do not require naturalization.
Therefore, Ted Cruz, who is a statutory citizen at & by birth, is IMHO eligible to the presidency according to the will of Congress. Unless and until SCOTUS decides to rule on whether or not statutory citizenship is equivalent to constitutional citizenship (not naturalized), that’s where we stand.
I welcome continued “intelligent” discussion on the issue. Emotion? well, not so much.
I like Cruz. He is poking the progressive hornets nest appropriately. Conservatives need to be aware that there are eligibility questions regarding Cruz. Expect the Left to come back at us with the same questions we had about Obamugabe (and could NOT prove because of his sealed records).
(It is too late now but) If Cruz is considering a POTUS run, he should seal all of his past records....NOW!
They are reserving the ability to make a ruling defining “natural born citizen” sometime later, when there is a person they HAVE to grant standing to - namely, Hillary Clinton.
People, please drop whatever pet argument you have and see how this has been set up. The whole thing of denying standing so NBC has not been legally defined, point-blank, is a strategic move. The R’s have a lot of people coming up in the ranks whose eligibility could be questioned. By denying standing they killed 2 birds with one stone - they kept Obama in office and they reserved this great legal weapon to be used if somebody dangerous to the communists (like Cruz) ever gets elected. It’s a double insurance policy for them.
By poo-poohing Obama’s eligibility problem or by arguing that we already know Cruz is eligible so we don’t need a ruling, we keep that insurance plan intact. Look at this strategically; I guarantee you that THEY are.
What else would you expect from a corrupt, Chicago style commie mob government?
Just because their corruption prevents a ruling or a hearing, doesn't mean it is an illegitimate issue.
Be well, my friend.
:: I see you have started the same crap that various losers used to slime Sarah supporters as well. ::
IIRC, CodeToad and Wideawake are the ones using ad hominem attacks against me. Please show me my error.
Actually, I (Cletus) have showed agreement with CT and WAwake’s arguments as to “modern” eligibility. There is no “proving me wrong” on this difference of opinon. Cruz is eligible (provided the SCOTUS does not remove him from office on eligibility impeachment)
Where did Sarah Palin come into play? How long have you playing right field for Cleveburg? (Disclosure: I would support a SP primary over a Cruz primary.)
Never said it was not a legitimate question. But thus far there is not even one congressman interested in the issue. No one cares except a fringe and even they don’t agree on the definition. In the meantime the real world moves on. Cruz 2016
I agree, for some reason though it is now not allowed on FR, lest you be labeled a troll.
I like Cruz A LOT too! I am behind him 100% and wish all in Congress shared his love for the Constitution and America as he does.
My dilemma, I believe after studying the issue here since 2008 and railing against obmmies eligibility, NBC = 2 Citizen parents born on US soil.
I'm finding it very difficult to change position for expediency and for that, I will now be a troll a traitor and undermining Cruz.
I guess I'll just stay off of these threads from now on.
Well I can't disagree with that, but that still doesn't make it right in my book.
Babies are murdered in the womb every day, Congress doesn't say a peep, but I will still keep fighting against it.
Works both ways, no?
Perhaps, show me why.
It doesn't matter if it "works" or does not "work" for me or for you.
You are misrepresenting the court's ruling in Minor.
The court did not say what you claim.
Show me the scrutiny.
It is not up to me to prove the accused negative.
When did you stop beating your wife?
I have printed out your reference to U.S.C. 1401 and filed it with my other copies of such. I first refer you to the Constitution which in Article I speaks only to ‘citizen’ and then to Article II which speaks to ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA. Obviously the Founders declared a difference to exist. I now refer you to your copy of U.S.C.1401. At the very beginning statement it speaks only to ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’. There is no mention whatsoever of ‘natural born citizens’ being covered as it does for ‘citizens’. As such it is a reasonable conclusion that U.S.C. 1401 was not intended to deal with ‘natural born citizen’. Your strident comments do not make your case as I read the Constitution and U.S.C.1401.
OK. It appears that GBA agrees that Cruz is eligible because Obamugabe was elected. Where did I say different?
You introduced the “right field” non-sequitor of Sarah Palin.
:: You are misrepresenting the court’s ruling in Minor. ::
To my reading, the courts decision in M v. H, supports an originalist understanding of the Constitution.
If, we come to an agreement that a 1783 understanding does not agree with a 2013 understanding of the plain language, then (i) let the court say so - which they did not in M v.H or (ii) let us force this change upon the people’s understanding and...simply...move on.
I live in the concept of today but ever learning from history. The people are vested in either preserving or re-defining history.
Hey...it works for you.
Seriously? You’re going to parse ‘citizen’ vs ‘natural born citizen’ as to mean there are two sets of laws for two different kinds of citizens? Are you really that desperate to vilify Cruz?
1401 deal directly with who I and who is not a natural born citizen. It was made for dummies that can’t seem to understand the difference otherwise. There are loads of laws made to clarify and codify the writing of the Constitution and 1401 is one of them.
But now I am comfortable with my decision and the logic I followed to get there. Maybe my post will help you. Maybe it won't. But you're not a troll. You may get zotted if you argue too loudly and publicly against Cruz's eligibility on FR, but you are not a troll. I know your position is an honest one, founded on well-researched documention.
You're one of my favorite "jerks" with whom to debate. I hope you stick around.
“You bring disgrace to FR and debate.”
Yeah, right. You just don’t like people going to your level and using your words and tactics. Liberals do that. They use personal attacks at will but try to tell conservatives they must operate at a higher level. Guess what? I don’t care! I could care less what you think of my tactics. I’ll use whatever I need to. Crybaby ran to the admin mod because he refuses to read something and then misquotes what it means and got called on it. Whaaa!
Go cry us a river.
“Lesbian Couple, Gay Man Listed as Three Parents on Babys Birth Certificate “
Brings up a whole set of issues with this internet lawyering of “it takes tow parents”. What if there are three women on the birth certificate ad no mention of the birth mother or father. What then?
Consider that the US Constitution did not detail NBC because it was a foregone conclusion at the time of the Constitution (ca. 1783)
To whit; why would we define the term “newborn infant” when everyone knows what that describes?
“Crybaby” copied the Admin Moderator because you insulted me personally. I did not use the abuse button which is, by nature, an actionable level.
Shall we discuss your mother’s virtue prior to her marrying your father?
“I have long been of the opinion that statutory citizens at birth are not natural-born citizens “
I believe you are wrong about that. A US citizen in a foreign country not having immigrated has no right to declare their child to be a citizen of that country, ergo, the child is a citizen of the parent’s country. If the parents are citizens of two differing countries then the mother’s citizenship passes.
Read my comments in the top of this thread: A visiting woman crosses the border to shop, goes into labor, and the child looses their birth right and the other country must accept her child as theirs? No way. I don’t believe in anchor babies.
Congress codified the law as to who is naturally a citizen and who must naturalize in 8 USC 1401, as it codifies other rights. In no way are there “statutory citizens”. Either a person is naturally a US citizen or not.
There is no such thing as “natural law” when it comes to law. Natural law is gravity, not citizenships.
Thanks, and thanks for reading that case.
Go bs some one else with your pap. Intelligent people can debate without calling names and debasing others opinions.
That's what libtards do, you've evidently taken the pages from their playbook to heart.
My words and tactics????LOL!!!!!
Point out to where I've called any one a name on this thread...DO IT!!!
I've been on these threads arguing NBC = 2 Citizen parents since 2008, I don't change with the wind "FRiend"
I have no respect for liberals or anyone that tries to harm the conservative cause. You don’t even read cases you quote and then continue to lie about the cases to bash Cruz. In no way could your being wrong about the courts judgment be a case of bad reading comprehension. It must be intentional.
Ron - don’t disagree with your points. But I was responding to the notion that we not run Cruz until we have a SC ruling. It’s been five years with very little happening. So I find the idea that we wait for some Obama ruling to be absurd. I doubt we can put any faith in a SC ruling happening anytime soon saying Obama is not President.
My main problem is deeper. I am just sick of this notion of always staying on defense and worried that we can’t run Cruz until we get permission.
LOL...I disagree because NBC is au natural, it needs no statutes. Two citizen parents, born on the soil, there is no doubt.
All other circumstances cause doubt. The former leaves no doubt, just what the Founders intended, imo.
I have read M v. H. and find that it supports ny assertions regarding NBC. Thanks for playing!
[sarc] SoConPubbie, according to POST #165 no longer has a valid argument in this dicsussion. Thanks for participating and we have some nice parting gifts for you. [/sarc]
Well, as one idiot to another, I have not only read this essay multiple times, I even conducted my own research into the term "Natural Born Citizen". The term stems from British Natural Law, something that the Founding Fathers would have used as a reference when they began writing the Constitution.
Under British Natural Law, a Natural Born Citizen is one whose parents were both citizens of Britain and subject to British domain. In addition, a Natural Born British citizen derived his/her citizenship from the parents according to the following formula - 2/3rds of the offspring's citizenship was derived from the father and the remaining 1/3rd was derived from the mother.
If we extend the British definition to both Cruz and zero, neither are eligible under the Natural Born Citizen requirement because neither was born on American soil and, at best, both are only 1/3rd American citizens since their mothers were American citizens.
The British adopted their version of Natural Law from Aristotle's creation and definition of Natural Law. And, the British concept was what the Founding Fathers predicated the Natural Born Citizen requirement for American presidential candidates.
We know, from a variety of sources that zero was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as he claims, and his father was Kenyan. So, under the Natural Born Citizen requirement, he doesn't qualify. Sen. Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. Again, like zero, Cruz doesn't meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement.
However, while he doesn't meet the POTUS eligibility requirement, I would certainly support and endorse him for VP. There is nothing that I have seen that would preclude him from being VP. As President of the Senate, Cruz would be an instrumental member, bringing some sanity and control back to a legislative body that is, currently, out of control.
intentional and ignorant of itelligent deliberation.
Well, if you are determined to consign matters of law and the Constitution to being my opinion, so be it.
However, if you spend a little time investigating these issues as I have, you will begin to see that they are matters of legal fact.
I'm sorry that you don't agree, there's nothing that says either of us have to. And, since you have convinced yourself that I am an illiterate idiot, I think this is one issue in which we will have to agree to disagree, ok?
Amen FRiend, we are truly living in times that “test men’s souls”
“You bring disgrace to FR and debate. “
Why don’t you just go back to McCain’s office and tell each other how “gentlemanly” your arguments are. I am tired of playing kissy face with people that intend to me harm.
I’m not desperate to vilify Cruz but I am a bit desperate to see that the Founders and my Constitution are not perverted to/for the likes of Obama and his enablers. I admire Cruz very much but my admiration for the Constitution and It’s integrity are foremost. One belief I hold is that the Founders knew what they wanted said even though they might have said more. Having worked in government at the local executive level for a number of years I am very acquainted with codifying legislative laws. As such I don’t believe U.S.C. 1401 as code removes the distinction between plain ‘citizen’ and the more elaborate ‘natural born citizen’. Nothing against Cruz as a patriot but certainly much against Obama and his enablers including the 50+or- shills that voted for him.
There are certain threads that I try to avoid on FR because the lions will come after you and rip your throat out. Saying unpopular things will get you flamed here and, if you aren't wearing your asbestos undies, you'll get burned.
Unfortunately, the issue of NBC has been so muddied by teachers, courts and politicians, most of whom don't like or understand either the meaning or the intent of the NBC requirement, that incurring the wrath of others here is to be expected.
I'm sorry that you got hung out to dry the past couple of days. However, as long as the prevailing opinion of NBC remains so muddy and so many people don't understand the ramifications, if you stand by the law against a popular politician like Cruz, you better have a fire extinguisher handy!
You bring disgrace by stooping to the level of name calling those who have disagreement.
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.