Posted on 01/18/2016 2:53:34 AM PST by Red Steel
This iirc because it is in the body of the constitution needs to be addressed thru the court.
From Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
"...Afroyim's broad interpretation of the scope of the Citizenship Clause finds ample support in the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen
Also:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."
unfortunately....I think the drip drip effect of this makes Huckabee correct. I assumed this was a non-issue. But I don’t think so now. Which is exasperating.
The issue doesn't have to go to court, it can go to GOP. It can go the state election boards, there are all sorts of places this can be challenged. Somebody certified eligibility, that's a misdemeanor.
And then there is the press - if a presstitute would assert the meaning of Rogers v. Bellei, a man born in Italy to a US citizen mother and Italian father is naturalized without going through an application and approval process, then why isn't Ted Cruz? Just the frickin' press asking that would change the dynamic, and the press is about as far from the court as one can get.
I lack creativity. It takes me awhile to see how all the pieces of the machine work together. But never mind me, what affects the outcome is the conduct of a nation full of morons (bless their hearts, they truly are good, honest people for the most part, and I mean no disrepect, just observing public discourse) who prefer to flap their uninformed gums.
Huckabee’s stance on this will do Cruz no favors in Iowa.
We know that you no so it's know longer an issue with you. Can I axe, how you got so smart?
You can say it over and over and over and over and you will, you will, you will, but it is still, just like your butthole, a singular person's OPINION.
It is not a fact, and it is not defined, because if it were, none of this discussion would be on going. I read Justice Joseph Story's OPINION Article, but not as a comment on a direct case, and it is not definitive, because if it were,
NONE OF THIS EVERLASTING DISCUSSION WOULD BE ON GOING.
So if your statement above is true, then are children of foreign ambassador's eligible to be president?
I was all supportive of all you said in post #3, but what you are saying in post #24 is wrong and it's inserting in the wrong stuff that confuses people and makes this issue more complicated than it is. To be Natural Born that child "born in the United States" must also owe allegiance to the USA. There are situations where that child would not owe any allegiance to the USA, one situation being the child of a foreign diplomat.
To be Natural Born that child would be "born a citizen of one of the several states, of parents not owing allegiance to another country."
That cuts off children of dual citizens, for example, and isn't literally "born on the soil," rather extends to being "born a citizen of a state" A little more fact intensive in some cases, but hey, it's a constitution, not a body of case law.
Your analysis is spot on. However, the reason why no court will ever take this on, is because to rule on Ted Cruz’s eligibility question would be to rule O ineligible. (Well- considering SCOTUS’s absurd obamacare decision with its tax/individual mandate provision, i suppose the court could theoretically twist themselves into more knots and greenlight his eligibility.)
Due to these treasonous prior actions, or lack thereof, our country is in a catch 22 regarding the rule of law. How does one go about reinstating the rule of law? I hope and pray that it is possible to do so peacefully.
This eligibility issue is a microcosm of the abuses our constitutional republic has suffered.
The senator should have seen this coming when he first entered US politics. There must be a clue in that attorney mind of his which made him feel qualified as NBC. Why else would he have worked so hard to make it to the top. Not being of sound legal mind here -whatever his clue might be is beyond comprehension. It was known when voting took place in Texas for senator he was born in Canada - which of course was of no concern at that time. He, being the great mind that has been claimed, might have better prepared a firmer basis as to his NBC status. Has this generation completely forgotten what the Constitution states about such? Finding a fair and balanced judge in this political climate will be close to an impossibility. Easier to look for the Easter Bunny.
Huckaby - is a lost soul, JMHO. Anything to place himself in the spotlight and above everyone else. Have nothing against men of the cloth, there have been more than a few in my family history - However, this man of the cloth is too much in personality of the typical ‘tee vee shysters who will send blessed water for a large sum of money’.
because to rule on Ted Cruz’s eligibility question would be to rule O ineligible. “
Is this b/c of the undisputed fact that obama’s dad is not a US citizen?
Or b/c of that undisputed fact together with the disputed fact that obama was born in Hawaii?
If you could elaborate, I’d be grateful. Thank you.
is your working hypothesis that Cruz, sometime when he was young, went through some sort of procedural naturalization?
BTTT
I see nothing confusing about it. Any child born in the United States under any circumstances is a NBC and can become President provided he meets all the other criteria.
*************************************************
Natural born citizen is one born in the country to citizen parenst
It’s not that I’m smart, it’s that I’m right. The truth is on my side and that makes this easy.
The child of a diplomat is the best known exception. The child of an illegal alien is not as clear cut when considered in the context of natural law as it has been applied throughout various SCOTUS decisions. By being born on US soil, the child is born into allegiance of the United States or, at least, there is a strong possibility that the court would determine that. The fact is, if we accept the attitudes of our founders, an alien child is absolutely a NBC. As Madison said, the place of birth is the best determinant of allegiance and it is what applies in the US. Go ahead and hand this to the court or the congress and see what happens. Cruz won’t be considered a NBC which is as it should be as natural citizenship should arise by soil before blood.
That's not true. In fact, if a credible challenge were to be lodged in court against Cruz (e.g., by Trump or another of the top-tier candidates), the basis for the challenge would be that Cruz was born out of the jurisdiction of the U.S.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 702, 702( 1898)
This analysis distinguishes between birth within the U.S. versus birth outside of it; parent status isn't in view here. Obama, having been born in the U.S., is a natural born citizen under the common law and the 14th Amendment. Cruz, having been born outside, would not be NBC.
Now, this is likely purely academic, as the chance a credible challenge to Cruz is lodged is slim to none, and, even if such occurs, the Courts are going to do their best to punt on the question. But in this hypothetical, moot court debate, the eligibility of Obama and Cruz are quite distinguishable.
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.
Cockburn on Nationality, 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
"British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown. "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
2 Cranch 64, 119.
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.
yada yada yada
Cruz’s ineligibility is clear cut, agreed. However, O’s eligibility is so murky that any official judicial ruling for Cruz would certainly be problematic for O. The obviously forged BC, the dual loyalty at birth, the Indonesian adoption and no evidence of repatriation, etc. It’s like a bad spy movie.
My point is that in the eyes of the judiciary, defining NBC may be too toxic to ever consider ruling on. And thus Cruz’s status will ultimately hang in the court of public opinion- which could be argued is unfair to him. However, Cruz was hoping this issue wouldn’t flair up as it has done, and instead would remain an unspeakable topic.
For trump to use this is pretty hard-knuckled in my opinion, but ultimately fair game. The dems will definitely leverage it, having no scruples at all with hypocrisy. Indeed the first several lawsuits have already been filed.
Sigh. I will still enthusiastically vote for Cruz if he gets the nominee- given how O has ravaged our constitution, I will support extraconstitutional measures needed in order to restore our republic. Similar to a war time measure? We are in uncharted waters indeed. I believe most people on this forum have searched their souls for the correct path/candidate to follow, and people simply end up with different results- not due to any waive ring love for country, but rather the complexities this tyranny has wrought.
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.