Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.
The Atlantic ^ | May 2013 | DAVID A. GRAHAMMAY

Posted on 06/11/2014 11:18:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

~~snip~~ (just the facts, ma'am).

But what won't prevent Cruz from becoming president is his place of birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, while his parents were living there. His father is now an American citizen, but was not at the time; his mother, however, was born in the United States.

Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz's case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here's a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.

~~snip~~

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; cruz2016; elections; eligibility; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-245 next last

Congressional Research Service

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney

November 14, 2011

Summary

The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Click the link for full report:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

1 posted on 06/11/2014 11:18:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I believe his mother was only living in Canada because she was working at the US Embassy there. She was born in America. So, although Ted was born in Canada, his mother was still a US Citizen .. which automatically gave him citizenship.

Ted Cruz is a “natural born” citizen of America.

I hope we’re not going to have a major fight over this issue here on FR.


2 posted on 06/11/2014 11:25:42 PM PDT by CyberAnt (True the Vote: MY AMERICA, "... I'm terrified it's slipping away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
I hope we’re not going to have a major fight over this issue here on FR.

That will likely occur...again.


3 posted on 06/11/2014 11:27:16 PM PDT by South40 (Liberalism is a Disease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Amen.


4 posted on 06/11/2014 11:27:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

I’m over it and fully support Ted.


5 posted on 06/11/2014 11:28:04 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Canada is in America. It’s just not part of the United States.


6 posted on 06/11/2014 11:29:08 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Hope you’re not going to go concern trolling on us.


7 posted on 06/11/2014 11:30:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Actually, it’s called “North American” continent .. NOT A COUNTRY.


8 posted on 06/11/2014 11:32:33 PM PDT by CyberAnt (True the Vote: MY AMERICA, "... I'm terrified it's slipping away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

How is that concern trolling. I am not saying Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States, nor have I ever said that.


9 posted on 06/11/2014 11:33:17 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Me too!!!!


10 posted on 06/11/2014 11:33:26 PM PDT by CyberAnt (True the Vote: MY AMERICA, "... I'm terrified it's slipping away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: South40

What is the point ..??

There is no argument over Cruz’s citizenship .. and anybody who says there is an argument .. is just playing politics.


11 posted on 06/11/2014 11:35:07 PM PDT by CyberAnt (True the Vote: MY AMERICA, "... I'm terrified it's slipping away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Correct. North America is made up of several countries. But people in North America and South America are Americans.


12 posted on 06/11/2014 11:37:00 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
I hope we’re not going to have a major fight over this issue here on FR.

The precedent has been set that concern trolls who spam threads with stupid arguments on this issue will be cast into outer darkness.

Those who wish to waste bandwidth promoting such idiocy will not be tolerated.

Ted Cruz is eligible… and imminently qualified.

Unlike most of the other RINO's that are being bandied about for consideration, Cruz loves this Country more than he loves himself.

The trolls have been warned. Free Republic is Cruz Country.

13 posted on 06/11/2014 11:37:13 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I’m so glad to hear that .. I’m definitely rooting for him.


14 posted on 06/11/2014 11:39:31 PM PDT by CyberAnt (True the Vote: MY AMERICA, "... I'm terrified it's slipping away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

How many Cruz threads are you going to chew up with that approach?


15 posted on 06/11/2014 11:40:31 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
My theory is there are some people that are so angry about Obama's alleged citizenship they keep interpreting the presidential eligibility more strictly.

(To me, of the Clinton's couldn't prove Obama wasn't a citizen, and no one else has in 6 years, then it's ridiculous to think their is some smoking gun out there)

16 posted on 06/11/2014 11:41:37 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

What approach. I didn’t say anything about Cruz. Except on another thread I said it’s ridiculous to say Cruz had Cuban citizenship.


17 posted on 06/11/2014 11:42:44 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

I’m for a unification behind a winning candidate. 2016 should be the year the grassroots get behind a strong candidate without splitting their votes 3 or 4 ways so the GOPe candidate wins the nomination.

The rules of the Republican primaries and caucuses will be even more stacked in the GOPe’s favor in 2016.

Cruz would fit the bill as the unity winning candidate for 2016.


18 posted on 06/11/2014 11:43:17 PM PDT by Nextrush (OBAMACARE IS A BAILOUT FOR THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
What is the point ..??

You would have to ask them. There is no question in my mind.

19 posted on 06/11/2014 11:43:56 PM PDT by South40 (Liberalism is a Disease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Good.


20 posted on 06/11/2014 11:47:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

LOL, post 12 didn’t mention Cruz, your song and dance routine seems to be to keep correcting people about America and American.

I just wonder how many Cruz threads are you going to use that on?


21 posted on 06/11/2014 11:50:51 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

“his mother was only living in Canada because she was working at the US Embassy there. “

The us embassy is also us soil too.....

So there is that too.


22 posted on 06/11/2014 11:52:03 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thankyou for posting this, Jim. I am so sick and tired of those dismissing Cruz! He is Reagan. He has never compromised. He stands tall and is exactly the fighter we need in 2016!


23 posted on 06/11/2014 11:55:41 PM PDT by stilloftyhenight (...staying home isn't an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG; CyberAnt

It doesn’t look like she worked at the Embassy, but I did learn that he grew up in the same exact neighborhood as I did.

Darragh, second-youngest of 17 children, grew up in an Irish-Italian family in Wilmington, Del. She was the first in her family to go to college, graduating from Rice University with a math degree, and she worked in Houston as a computer programmer at Shell Oil.
She was independent and four years older than Rafael Cruz, who had two daughters by a previous marriage when he met Darragh. The girls spent summers with the young couple.
Ted Cruz was born three days before Christmas in 1970 in the Canadian oil town of Calgary, where his parents’ newly launched seismic-data business had taken them.
Of his days in Alberta, he remembers only cold weather. It was later he learned that when he was 3 and living there, his parents separated. Rafael Cruz returned to Houston. About six months later, Darragh followed, though they remained estranged.
Ted recalled that one day, a friend of Rafael’s invited him to Clay Road Baptist Church in the northwest Houston suburb of Spring Branch.


24 posted on 06/12/2014 12:06:24 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Most of that is a quote from this article.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120428-senate-candidate-ted-cruz-aims-to-pick-up-mantle-of-reagan.ece


25 posted on 06/12/2014 12:07:21 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; nickcarraway

Canada is not in America.

It is in The America’s.

No one wants to immigrate to The Americas.

Everyone wants to make it to America...

No one wants to be like The Americas

Everyone wants to be like America....

No one wants what The Americas make...

Everyone wants to wear Levis, Have a Coke and a Smile, Eat at McDonalds and enjoy our freedoms and liberty.

Mexico Does not posses American ideals.

Argentina does not possess American ideals.

Cuba does not possess American ideals.

Can-uh-Duh is America lite...Ehhh

Only the United States is America.

And only in America can a black boy grow up and become a white woman.

Baseball is an American sport.

Soccer sucks.

The NBA is American...

Being like Mike is American...

Being like Fidel is not.

The “Just Do it” spirit is uniquely American.

Canadians aren’t Americans and would be highly insulted to be called such.

Mexico is a basket case, as are it’s southern neighbors like Guatemala, Honduras and other countries.

No one wants to fight to get to Cuba or Venezuela.

Thousands of children crossed the border from Mexico to America just today.

A better life awaits you in America but, not in Haiti. That place blows....

America has Cowboys. Yippee Kye Yeah mthrfkr...Hans is dead.

The countries south of America have Vaqueros. That ain’t sexy.

America plays Cowboys and Indians(substitute any others if you care. We play that too)

America elects cowboys to be President.

America invented Texas Hold em. Not the new immigration game but, the kind of card game even James Bond Plays for big money, while enjoying an American drink; The Martini

America has a stirring and kick ass National Anthem.

America has Elvis. He rocks.

America the Beautiful, from sea to shining sea.

America saves the worlds collective ass all day long.

Heck, America will even beat someone down because we like a good fight and hate bullies.

America “The Shining City on the Hill”.

America kicked a major bully’s buttocks, twice.

America will go break things to end the argument, put your sorry azz country back together and never ask for anything in return.

America shows up whenever disaster befalls another nation. WE don’t just show up, we’re firstest and bestest.

America gives til it hurts.

America seeks not further territory but, if we help you, only a little land for fallen men.

America gave the world D-day.

The world is better for America in it.

No one wants to trade in Peso’s, Rubles or the Euro.

American green backs rule the world and every country I have ever been to loves to take our loot but, won’t take the loot of a neighboring country I just came from...weird.

The world loves America and can easily find it on a map.

If you can’t make it in America, you can’t make it anywhere...

Sure, some countries have bullfighting but, they’re sissies.

Americans ride em til we’re done...

Coming to America! Neil Diamond or Eddie Murphy...


26 posted on 06/12/2014 12:19:28 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; nickcarraway

America has Rocky with James Brown belting out “Living in America!”


27 posted on 06/12/2014 12:20:34 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

That is good enough for me.


28 posted on 06/12/2014 12:30:32 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>>imminently qualified

He will be qualified soon?


29 posted on 06/12/2014 1:07:02 AM PDT by Lisbon1940
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

There is just one thing in this article. Mantles come from above. One doesn’t have to pick one off the floor.

Every thing this man says comes from the heart. He loves his country and it’s citizens.

He is an expert on the Constitution. A scholar. And a fighter! Cruz is the man we must unite behind. He is the only one who will undo Obama’s atrocities! No weasel words. He flat out will take no bs from the progressives. I will look forward to hearing this POTUS every single day. It’s been a long time coming.


30 posted on 06/12/2014 2:03:00 AM PDT by stilloftyhenight (...staying home isn't an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

A birther thread? Really? What is the point of posting this here? Are you actually looking for dissent or opposing views from Constitutional Conservatives or are you just looking to ban them?


31 posted on 06/12/2014 2:35:38 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Go Ted go! Go Jim go! Go Sarah go! Go FR go! Rebellion is brewing! Conservatism is triumphant! Restore God to the classroom! Take America back!

Free Republic is a site for Conservative activism and not a liberal debating society as the boss has repeatedly stated. Senator Ted Cruz's eligibility for POTUS has long been a settled issue. He's 100% American and more authentically Texan than just about anyone short of Davey Crockett and Sam Houston. If it's not our Sarah taking the oath of office in January 2017, it will be Ted Cruz. Count on it.

32 posted on 06/12/2014 2:46:39 AM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

The trolls have been warned. Free Republic is Cruz Country.

ya think? LOL


33 posted on 06/12/2014 3:40:03 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; nickcarraway
I just wonder how many Cruz threads are you going to use that on?

How many threads you hijack and bash libertarians on for $500 , Alex

ding ding ding - Daily Double !!!

34 posted on 06/12/2014 3:45:43 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Could somebody please address this hypothetical for me?

Imagine for a moment that the year is 1815. A woman who is a U.S. citizen by birth to two other citizens travels to Great Britain, where she then weds the ruling King of Great Britain and gives birth to the King's first son.

Would that son, the heir to the British throne, then be a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. and be eligible for the Presidency?

I can't imagine a case of more questionable loyalty and yet there are those on this thread who would believe that our Founders would have no problem with this.

35 posted on 06/12/2014 4:38:13 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
The Naturalization act of 1795 accounted for that:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

36 posted on 06/12/2014 5:18:45 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I can't imagine a case of more questionable loyalty and yet there are those on this thread who would believe that our Founders would have no problem with this.

What gets me is no one seems to notice the double standard that the feds (and the subsequent mouthpieces for the administrative organ) are tossing out.

According to them, a child born here of foreign parents is automatically a 'citizen of the United States' at birth, but a child born to a US citizen in a foreign country is NOT a citizen of THAT country, but ALSO a citizen of the united states at birth. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Why don't they just go ahead and proclaim everyone in the world a citizen of the united states since the concept of national sovereignty is so meaningless to them?

37 posted on 06/12/2014 5:20:26 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xzins
xzins quotes: "The Naturalization act of 1795 accounted for that: "

It's late. Do you interpret this to mean that the heir to the throne is or is not eligible to be President as described in my hypothetical?

What you have cited is specifically a "naturalization" act of Congress and thus has no authority to lessen a Constitutional restriction.

38 posted on 06/12/2014 5:26:00 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

What I’m saying is that in the era of the revolution, that would never have happened.

Today, if you marry a princess of England, then your child will be a citizen at birth of the USA, provided you have met the residency requirements.


39 posted on 06/12/2014 5:28:46 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
It's late. Do you interpret this to mean that the heir to the throne is or is not eligible to be President as described in my hypothetical?

Clearly not: " Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." The king was never a resident of the United States.

What you have cited is specifically a "naturalization" act of Congress and thus has no authority to lessen a Constitutional restriction.

Congress has the Constitutional power to pass uniform rules of naturalization. As part of that, wouldn't you agree would be the responsibility to identify those who don't need to be naturalized? In other words, define natural born citizens?

40 posted on 06/12/2014 5:33:52 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Today, if you marry a princess of England, then your child will be a citizen at birth of the USA, provided you have met the residency requirements.

Maybe not. Is the princess subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? I would assume that she would enjoy diplomatic immunity and therefore would not. So under the 14th Amendment that may prevent automatic citizenship. An interesting legal dilemma.

41 posted on 06/12/2014 5:37:12 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg; William Tell
As part of that, wouldn't you agree would be the responsibility to identify those who don't need to be naturalized?

No. You cannot accurately interpret the Constitution by reading it by what is not there. They have the ability to decide a rule of Naturalization for the States to follow, no more.

Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portion of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2, Lectures on Law

Denizens become Citizens by applying to the States, who then follow the rule that Congress proscribed. There is no Constitutional justification for direct authority over 'immigrants' as the federal government (as well as the majority of the populace) believes there is.

That's prohibited by the 10th Amendment.

42 posted on 06/12/2014 5:45:42 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

The closest we came to this situation was Charles Bonaparte,who was Sec. of the Navy and AG under TR. He also founded the FBI, then known as the Bureau of Investigation. At birth, in Maryland, he was the second cousin of Napoleon III. His grandfather was Jerome Bonaparte, Napoleon I’s brother. And yes, he was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President.


43 posted on 06/12/2014 5:50:08 AM PDT by gusty (9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; xzins; P-Marlowe
Thanks for posting this Jim.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've long ago tired of all these Constitutional "experts" on here who have now spent half a decade trying to define "natural born citizen" in a way that suits their agenda.

As it stands right now, Ted Cruz is quite possibly our ONLY hope for 2016. I am not aware of another conservative politician who has the experience and ability to win this thing in two years.

44 posted on 06/12/2014 5:54:51 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin.


45 posted on 06/12/2014 5:56:18 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Okay. Just discovered the Wilson lecture link is bad, and don't have time to track down another. They're becoming harder to find, so - since the first The Naturalization Acts -

United States Congress
For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:
SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien............
First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states

Part of the Application includes a renunciation of previous Allegiance before taking the Oath, and that Application was to be made to the residents' State as per both State and federal clauses of the Constitution.

Before taking an Oath, one was required to renounce previous political ties of Allegiance to other countries.

Now everyone acts like changing citizenship is like switching hats!

46 posted on 06/12/2014 6:07:22 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network; Jim Robinson; xzins; P-Marlowe
I am a LONG-TIME supporter of Sarah Palin, I was pushing for her to be McCain's running mate months before most FReepers even knew who she was (and I have the posts to prove it).

That being said, I don't think she can stand up to the assault that would come the second she announced. Sarah's best chance was 2012, none of us know the real reason she decided not to run, but SHE DOES and it's probably still there.

I have ALWAYS understood that conservatives do best when we run "unelectable" candidates like Ronald Reagan. However, I now understand that in addition to being unelectable they must ALSO BE UNFLAPPABLE like Reagan was.

47 posted on 06/12/2014 6:13:02 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

A parent has to file a consular report of birth abroad (CRBA) and the child’s citizenship at birth is filed. That action by the parents would indicate jurisdiction of the United States.

I understand that if the parents are negligent, then the child can be issued citizenship papers in acknowledgement of his/her citizenship at birth. That again would be an acknowledgement of US jurisdiction.


48 posted on 06/12/2014 6:15:31 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Palin / Cruz 2016


49 posted on 06/12/2014 6:15:38 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.

That is correct but Ted Cruz’s location of birth is not the constitutional issue.

The issue of "natural born" as specified in the Constitution doesn't have to do with the location of Ted Cruz's birth. Natural born has to do with the location of his parents’ birth.

Address this question.

Why did the founders include a requirement for a presidential candidate to be natural born but not for congressional candidates?

They had a well thought out and logical reason to add that requirement for presidential candidates.

50 posted on 06/12/2014 6:15:53 AM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-245 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson