Posted on 02/09/2016 6:22:54 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
“Regardless of the source, the article is correct in its essential details.”
Yes, it is. And this is just a harbinger of what Cruz and his disciples can expect from the GOP-e, the liberals and their MSM.
constitution (kon-sti-tooshun)
n.
1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing.
2.
a. The composition or structure of something; makeup.
b. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
3.
a. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
b. The document in which such a system is recorded.
c. Constitution The supreme law of the United States, consisting of the document ratified by the original thirteen states (1787-1790) and subsequent amendments.
There are only two jobs foreign-born citizens, or non-NBC citizens—naturalized “citizens”—are not allowed to hold, as set forth in the the system of fundamental laws and principles prescribing the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution framed by the first Americans: that of president and vice-president.
This problem presented by Canadian-born Cruz should begin to work itself out tonight. If it doesn’t, down the road we will quite possibly face the bigger problem of: Cruz’s candidacy and Trump’s bid both set aside by the GOP-e at convention, and/or Cruz’s bid voided by Congress, then installation of the other Cuban, Marco Roboto, a NBC but also an establishment Beltway insider, cheap labor mouthpiece ... or (shudder) his guero counterpart, Jeb Bush.
If Cruz loves his adopted country as he claims, he would drop out now instead of waiting to be rejected state-by-state, thus drawing out the rancour generated by his candidacy (and by his ways & means), or at the convention or by the Congress.
Just remember that for any legal position argued by a lawyer, you can pretty much always find a lawyer to argue the opposite position.
From that, one may reasonably conclude that at least half of all lawyers are wrong at any given time.
There’s the old joke about the town that only had one lawyer, and he never was able to make a decent living until another lawyer moved into town.
When was Ted Cruz naturalized? Where’s the paperwork?
If Cruz was never naturalized he could not have been the Texas Solicitor General or a U.S. Senator... well, unless he was really a natural born citizen all along.
Bill Clinton stayed in office.
Bill and Hillary never convicted for multiple crimes.
No banksters doing any real jail time.
No real investigation of the evidence suggesting Obama not qualified to be President.
No Supreme Court overturning of unconstitutional Obamacare.
Does anyone really think the establishment, even as much as they hate Cruz, has the cojones to rule him ineligible?
Please everyone: Get Real.
From the Legal Minds at Slate?
Right............
No judges have ruled!
Yep.
Cruz became a U.S. citizen solely by the generous provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, not by nature.
Throughout most of American history he would not have even been granted citizenship under our Naturalization laws, much less have been considered to be a natural born citizen.
There was no Judge involve in the spurious B$ put out by Illinois election commission's declaration of NBC status for Cruz.
In codifying various regulations for naturalizing those who are not natural born citizens of the United States, Section 301(g) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act defined the Constitution's "natural born citizen," that is, those citizens of the United States at birth. The 1952 INA was established under the authority of Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution.
The 1952 INA did not 'naturalize' Ted Cruz. If it had, he would have been a "naturalized citizen." Instead, according to the 1952 INA, Ted Cruz was a citizen of the U.S. at birth; thus he did (and does) not need to become a naturalized citizen.
Name that Court and their jurisdiction.
That is an often heard meme on FR but it is still very disappointing to see it here. Legal precedents have been used to slowly negate the Constitution, so I guess we may as well have illegal precedents to make the process complete.
It did naturalize him. Those who are born outside our country are made citizens solely by virtue of our Immigration and NATURALIZATION statutes. This has always been true, throughout American history. And prior to the 1934 NATURALIZATION Act he wouldn’t have been granted citizenship.
Amen.
Under the 1952 NATURALIZATION Act, Cruz would have been required to fulfill certain residency requirements to retain that citizenship. In other words, even his citizenship under the NATURALIZATION Act was CONDITIONAL. Something that could not possibly be true were he a natural born citizen of the United States.
Exactly.
But here's the catch: prior to a few decades ago, everybody DID agree about what the words "natural born citizen" meant. They all knew that it means someone who was born within the boundaries of the realm, within the allegiance of the sovereign power over the geographical area in which a person was born. If you were born within it, you were natural born. If you were born without it, you were an alien, who could be naturalised, but was NOT and never could be natural born.
Everybody agreed on this. Blackstone agreed on it. James Madison agreed on it. Zephaniah Swift agreed on it. James Kent agreed on it. Joseph Story agreed on it. St. George Tucker agreed on it. Lysander Spooner agreed on it. Horace Binney agreed on it. William Rawles agreed on it. Andrew White Young agreed on it. The US Supreme Court agreed on it in a number of cases both before and after the Civil War. The 14th amendment agreed on it.
Even the 1790 naturalisation act that everyone loves to cite didn't change anything. Congress had no power to define what a "natural born citizen" was, and indeed, did not do so with that statute. The language was removed by Madison a mere five years later when the law was revised.
Everyone agreed that the jus soli definition of a natural born citizen was THE definition.
It has only been within the past few decades, in which we have seen a number of candidates arise who are not constitutionally qualified because they are not natural born citizens, that we have seen "confusion" and "difficulty" in understanding what "natural born citizenship" means. And this because people contort themselves all over the place trying to get some preferred candidate of theirs to be considered qualified as a natural born citizen, even when they manifestly are not.
A person whose citizenship from birth derives from an act of Congress is naturalised from birth.
Your statement is just unreferenced nonsense. It's not in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides no definition or category for "naturalized citizen from birth."
Read what the 1952 INA states. The 1952 INA defines naturalization (Section 101, (23)):
"The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." [Emphasis added]and in (24):
The term "naturalization court", unless otherwise particularly described, means a court authorized by section 310 (a) of title III to exercise naturalization jurisdiction.Title III provides the distinction between those who are nationals and citizens at birth (Section 301), nationals but not citizens at birth (Section 308), and those who obtain U.S. nationality through naturalization (Chapter 2).
So if Ted Cruz is naturalized, in what naturalization court was he naturalized, and where is his paperwork?!? Specific documents, rather than tapdancing gibberish, is required.
Actually, the 1952 Immigration and Nationiality Act (Title III, Chap. 1, Sec. 301 (b)) states the "national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a)" will lose that citizenship that he has had since birth unless he resides in the U.S. before he is 23 and lives in the U.S. for at least five years.
If this is accomplished, then there is no naturalization process and paperwork required in a naturalization court, and the person remains a citizen of the U.S. at (and since) birth.
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.