Posted on 01/19/2016 8:55:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
If Obama can be prez so can Cruz!
It is not up to the Supremes. It is up to Congress. The constitution specifically empowers Congress AND ONLY CONGRESS with the power to establish the rules of naturalization (Article I Section 8).
Don’t matter that Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen of Canada, or that he forgot to report loans from that bank, Golden Sachs, his wife works for, or that he advocated for Trans-Pacific Trade, or that he will be beholden to wealthy donors, or that he handed out teddy bears at the border with Glen Beck to welcome the children, at least he is a real conservative...sigh
Lets sing that Springsteen song together:
“Born near the USA, Born near the USA.” Come on you know the words.
Obama lied. Born in hawaii etc. mother American citizen etc.
Cruz told the truth. No MSM to have his back.
“They never caught my buddy Bob when he robbed that bank, killed that guy and took his boat to flee the country. Cool! I can too!”
Good luck with that.
There was a time when people raising issues about Cruz’ eligibility were summarily banned. Hilariously, our ‘principled liberal’ could not be pried out from under his rock back then. But he’s obviously kept a close watch, and has recently taken to slithering out of his safe space. It’s knee slapping funny, when you think about it.
The various laws through the years give insight into what NBC actually meant to the framers of the Constitution, but particularly those of 1790 and 1795 because they had many members of the Constitutional Convention also in Congress, and George Washington, the president who signed those laws, was also the president of the Constitutional Convention. So, THEIR understanding of what was meant by the founders when they wrote “NBC” central and decisive.
So, IF later Congresses MISUNDERSTOOD the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” and are writing constitutionally questionable laws if applied to presidential qualifications, then the Supreme Court could be called upon to answer the question.
“Can we drop this phony matter now? This article proves Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen.”
“Sorry, GOPe!”
On the contrary, the article proves Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen by proving he is the exact opposite, a naturalized U.S. citizen who is ineligible to be POTUS. The U.S. Naturalization Act of 1952 used by Ted Cruz as the source of authority for his acquisition of U.S. citizenship is a naturalization statute that naturalized Ted Cruz as a U.S. citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions concluded persons born abroad can acquire U.S. citizenship only by naturalization, including the children of U.S. citizens. There is simply no wiggle room whatsoever, the statutes and the case law have left no room ofr doubt whatsoever that Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen with no possibility of eligibility to be a lawful POTUS.
And I will also admit my own bias which is to prefer Cruz as President.
That said, the uncertainty involved in the issue as far as Cruz is concerned is sufficiently significant that in my view, Cruz should engage the issue directly.
I know that an effort is already in process to arrange membership on convention Credentials and Rules committees to prevent nomination of Cruz on Natural Born Citizen grounds--deny Credentials to delegates who are committed to vote for him; adopt rules preventing nomination of individuals who are not born in the Geographical Territory of the several states.
The bottom line on the Technical is that it is legally uncertain whether or not Cruz would be held eligible under Article II Sec. 1 by the U S Supreme Court if the issue ever reached the Court.
Among Constitutional Lawyers, the bar is divided between those who are of the opinion that the clause requires birth in the Geographical Territory of the United States and those who believe that persons who are Citizens of the United States at birth under then applicable Citizenship Law are also eligible.
None of the authorities you site; none of the editorial views expressed; none of the published analysis is controlling. The issue would be decided by the Supreme Court on purely political grounds as they exist when the issue reaches the Court. The outcome is not conclusively predictable.
The issue about parentage and personal history is bogus except to the extent it is relevant under the citizenship statutes.
The current state of the assumed law on the topic reflects movement by the sophisticated bar. Prior to 2000, the bar was of the strong view that birth in the sovereign territory of the United States was required. That view has moved in the direction of citizenship at birth. Frankly, I believe the movement is the result of the widespread knowledge that the current occupant of the White House was born outside the United States.
For the most part, the Constitutional Bar is made up of Liberals whose principles, if any, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate their interest in a specific result.
However, the uncertainty involved works against the Cruz interest to a significant degree--I doubt that he is going to get the nomination unless the issue gets resolved.
Frankly, given Senator Cruz's high level of sophistication on Constitutional Law issues, I am disappointed that he has not advanced a plan to get it resolved earlier.
Two clarifications:
1. Speaking in generalities, “parents” means one or both parents because “children,” not “child,” are the progeny. The wording spoke of both classes (parent & child) in the plural. Your interpretation, therefore, would need to have been written:
“And the CHILD (not children) of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”
2. A citizen in 1790, though never explicit in this statement, was presumed to be male, i.e., a father rather than a mother. BUT the essence & fullness of citizenship DID change officially, if not over time and in otherwise general practice, with the passage of the 19th constitutional amendment, which leaves no doubt that “citizen” means either parent.
No! This article does not prove Cruz is a natural born citizen. Constitutionally speaking, clearly Cruz is not a natural born citizen (article II, section I, clause 5 if you are interested) but what this and other articles prove, as well as Obama’s (illegitimate) presidency, Cruz’ and Rubio’s candidacies is the need for the courts and congress to step in and clarify this matter once and for all.
Personally, I hope that determination will be that the constitution means what it says it means in plain language, that you are ONLY eligible if you are born on American soil of two citizen parents, that you are more than 35 years in age and you have lived in this country for at least 14 years.
In this dangerous age, with this massive unfettered illegal invasion, anchor babies growing up with no real connection to this country, barely able to speak English, this is more important than ever, even though it means right now that a one good man we all admire can never be president; however, he can serve this country in any other capacity. Voting for Ted Cruz is extremely short-sighted and has the potential for rendering great harm to this country!
“Good luck with that.”
Guess what? It works. So I am having good luck with that.
Maybe you liberals should be worried the next president finds Obama isn’t a US citizen and causes all kinds of grief for you guys.
I'm not versed, brother, I'm not versed! It confuses the hell out of me.
Apparently it is common. Well, obviously it is. The closest I got to it was "group think," but I could always cut through that.
How do you know that? Can you get inside our minds and manufacture our thoughts?
I was taught exactly the same! Only it was high school civics in the 1960s. I bet there are plenty of people here who would say they were taught the same in their high school civics in the 1950s, and if my parents were still alive I am quite certain they would say they were taught the same in the 1930s! And as I remember, my mother was quite concerned about Obama’s eligibility, and felt he was not eligible because of his non-citizen father, when he was running the first time! (Fortunately she did not live to see what a mess Obama has made of things.)
This phony nonissue is all the Trumpsters have. They’re desperate.
Exactly. That's one of the things that's so ridiculous about it. The definition was and has been *settled law* for over 200 years..to the point it was taught to schoolchildren as a regular part of the curriculum.
It's not some kind of big, convoluted mystery, some people just don't like the definition as it was.
“It’s doesn’t matter if he is legally eligible to run.
28% is impossible to overcome.”
Yep. But people don’t seem to get that.
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.