Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I make no claims as to what they are. I note they generally follow Original intent. I like that they do that quite a lot.
What would you describe their judicial philosophy to be? Justice Scalia prefers the term “Textualist” to describe his judicial philosophy.
I don't agree with the notion that the written text is the only aspect of a law that should be considered. I believe that written statutes are not always clear. I believe the 14th amendment is in this class because it does not specifically mention "except children born to aliens with foreign allegiance". Bingham twice said this was his intent, but he did not make this clear in the text. A reading of the debates make his intention clearer.
Justice Black agrees with my methodology in the case of Duncan v Louisiana.
Justice Black:
Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.
“Stare decisis” is a guide for later rulings it is not an anchor on them.
Stare Decisis is a cop-out to justifying bad interpretations of law. The last occasion I had to hear the words "Stare Decisis" was when Justice Sandra Day O'conner said them to explain why the court was not going to overturn Roe v Wade. Even the liberal lawyers of the nation admitted it was bad law, but argued it would be too disruptive to overturn it.
If it was too disruptive, the fault for this lies with those people who urged this ridiculous reading of the law in the first place. Unfortunately, reality and the court are often strangers, which is why I put little stock in relying on the opinions of courts. I consider it in most cases, worthless as evidence.
Courts do not decide actual facts. They simply decide what they will ASSERT are facts, whether they be true or not.
Reminds me of a very old joke involves a man being shown a set of inkblots, and interpreting them all as pictures of people having sex. When the tester announces that he's clearly obsessed with sex, he says, "Me? You're the one with the collection of dirty pictures.
You (JW) put words in his (DL) mouth and then interpret them to reveal your own biases.
This is exactly my point. Conservatives have a lot of reasons to think the 14th amendment is badly written law, not the least of them is that it is used to create millions of "anchor babies" and "birth tourism". It also has been used to justify removing prayer from public schools, It created Abortion out of thin air, and were it not for misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, our current Occupier of the White House would likely not be there.
To a conservative, the first thing that comes to mind regarding any criticism of the 14th amendment is Abortion, Prayer in Schools, (Basically the Atheist/Communist assault on religion in our nation.) Illegal Immigration, and a whole host of other issues. There is NO ONE who is going to argue that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote! (They used to vote exclusively Republican.) You know who thinks of this stuff? Liberals. That's the first thing they think of when they are trying to criticize someone.
Rorschach test is exactly right. He sees "dirty pictures" because that's where his mind is.
Thanks for that thought. It helped me clarify (I think) what has been in the back of my mind ever since this eligibility issue surfaced. I.E., this CANNOT be just about Obama, or anyone actually occupying the office. The time for challenges is, as it always has been for every elected office, during the candidacy. Unqualified office holders have been removed after election, but very rarely, and never by the SCOTUS.
There then is the problem for a very considerable number of Americans, myself included, who think Obama was ineligible to run for the office. I would like to think the SCOTUS has the same qualms and is therefore waiting to rule on eligibility for a candidate, rather than a sitting President, no matter the lack of bona fides.
Of course, this has nothing to do with various items of Obama's documentation. There is sufficient reason to suspect they are forgeries. That is another matter and really ought not come as surprise to anyone familiar with the man's surrender of his law license rather than face a Bar Hearing. It has always astounded me that this has never been even looked at by the MSM. His legal career ended during his first and only (1)case, during which opposing attorneys noted wild discrepancies between his "autobiography" and his Bar Application, which at the time was easily accessible on line at the web site of the Illinois Bar, and in which he denied "use of an alias," "drug use," and "traffic violations.". No one thinks it odd that BOTH the President and his wife were removed from the Illinois Bar, asked in his case, and court-ordered in hers?
Yes.
NEWS FLASH!
This isn't a popularity contest and I'm not vying for a prize!
But if an official marriage doc for SADO and BHO SR were to be found, then that would change things, wouldn’t it?
A better question would be...why discuss NBC at all if it had no bearing on the question at hand?
The ruling didn't contravene the criteria, obviously, or the dissent wouldn't have made the objection it did.
Yes it did! If he had been an NBC then there would have been no need to resort to the 14th amendment!
All the court did was say that Ark had the same RIGHTS as a NBC, not the same PRIVILEGES of one!
And again, if he had been an NBC then there would have been no need to resort to the 14th amendment! Minor vs Happersett is illustrative of that!
Thank you all for the additional info and confirmation.
BTW, don't you think that the question presented was done so on purpose?
Do you honestly believe that if the question before the court had been one based upon Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 instead of the 14th Amendment that it would have even been heard?
so an illoegal alien can be president if the United states ???
2 Mexican parents who just happen to be in the US illegally when the baby is born ???
Is that child a full American citizen ???
or a Mexican since one of the parents just might be over 14 ???
HELLO ???
You cant have it both ways kid...
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father
“He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.
________________________________________________________
Yeah a natural born Cuban
was his Dad at least 14 ???
Actually Cruz was born with three citizenships. Canadian, Cuban and American. That indeed is not a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen with sole allegiance to the United States.
Well, you're the one who thinks that. You tell me.
I'll try the analogy I used with someone else earlier--I'm not sure she understood it, but maybe you will. Say the question before me is whether someone is a resident of Texas. My answer could be, "Well, they get their mail at a Houston address, and their name is on a utility bill with a Houston address, and they have a phone number with a Houston area code, so I conclude that they're a resident of Texas." Note that the question wasn't whether they were a resident of Houston and I didn't pronounce them a resident of Houston, but I used the evidence of their Houston residency to conclude they were a resident of Texas. The NBC question was like that--it was the route the court took to concluding Ark was a citizen (i.e., not "no bearing").
Yes it did! If he had been an NBC then there would have been no need to resort to the 14th amendment!
I am not one of those who believes the 14th Amendment created some new kind of citizen.
All the court did was say that Ark had the same RIGHTS as a NBC, not the same PRIVILEGES of one!
So now please find me where the court made that distinction; also where anyone has listed which attributes of natural-born citizenship are rights and which ones are privileges. It'd also help if you found a description of how some of those rights but not the privileges appertain to 14th A. citizens (if there were such a thing), even though the 14th specifically mentions "privileges."
You may even consult the wisdom of history's great philosopher's to assist you in devising a definition that you may wish to use for "resident," for "natural born citizen" or for "thirty five years." And, the philosophers you consult need not even be American philosophers.
The important thing is your duty under the Constitution: you must never vote for a candidate that you believe is unqualified. I'm sure you won't.
The Constitution does not empower the Supreme Court to deem anyone ineligible to run for president. The Supreme Court has never even hinted that it would like to claim such a power. In our country (unlike in Iran), candidates need not seek court or committee approval to run for president. Here, the voters and their electors select presidents and rule on presidential candidate qualifications. It was intentionally designed to be a political and not a judicial process.
Judges can participate in ruling on a presidential candidate's qualifications (without their robes) at the polls, just like everyone else.
He was physically born in Mexico, of legal American parents
________________________________________________
Yes and No
Yes we know he was born in Mexico
His son Willard even boasted that his family were illegal aliens from Mexico who entered the US illegally (which we also already knew)
and No the Romney family were not legally American citizens they never intended to be American citizens
they were ex-patriots who has turned their backs on America and her decency and laws and the Constitution and fled to Mexico never intending to return so that they would never again have to live under the jurisdiction thereof of the Constitution..
nor were the Romneys who came here as illegal aliens loyal to America...they didnt love America...
George and his kid, Willard stomped out of the GOP convention and worked against the Conservatives Goldwater and his friend Ronald Reagan and went and helped Johnson win the election...
When you realize that George had no connection or loyalty to America and had been weaned on hate for the very idea of the Founding Fathers and America..
Is it any wonder how isolated from the knowlege of Americanism that Willard has been ???
the father of George Romney was just a baby when the Romneys immigrated to Mexico and he grew up in Mexico as a Mexican citizen in a polygamist commune there..
When George was born in Mexico to partents who still denounced and hated America, he too lived in the same politically and socially unAmerican atmosphere...
only a revolution caused them to return because there was nowhere else to go...they came to the US hidden in a group of 1,000 Americans who were just visiting Mexico...
They arrived here without documents and they were accepted as mere visitors/tourists also...
they pretended that they had not lived in Mexico for 30 years and nobody bothered to ask them ...
However the whole scheme got exposed when George thought he was entitled to be president...
and couldnt produce an American birth certificate for himself nor naturalization papers for his father or himself nor an other proof of American citizenship..
No the parents of George were not “legal American parents” in accordance to the Constitution when George was born...
they were Mexicans...by choice ..
and the Supreme Court never found George to be eligible...
he never bothered to apply to the SCOTUS because he knew he wasnt...
otherwise the parents of Cruz could be considered Canadians...
They never came to the US until Ted was 4 years old...
that is not visiting... thats staying...
and not because the parents were in the US military...they werent...
they just chose to work in Canada...
“But if an official marriage doc for SADO and BHO SR were to be found, then that would change things, wouldn’t it?”
As early as April 1961, the INS suspected that the Feb 1961 marriage was bigamous. Curiously, unlike most US states, in HI a bigamous marriage is not automatically void but only voidable IF LEGALLY PERFORMED IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE.
IF Sr. had taken SADO to Kenya and entered into a Muslim plural marriage it might have been legal under UK Kenyan colonial law, but there is no evidence that the bigamous marriage took place in Kenya or that it was Muslim.
Below is a link and syllabus from a fascinating case from Hawaii which is similar but distinguishable fro the BHO Sr.-SADO marriage:
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1505305014
“Where wage earner married a second woman without benefit of termination of his first marriage in China at a time when polygamous marriages were legal, Hawaiian courts would consider the second marriage voidable due to the general public policy against polygamy. However, since Hawaiian courts would rule the marriage voidable rather than void the second wife would have inheritance rights where neither of the parties sought a divorce of nullity at any time. (C~ Tai C. RA IX (T~) to RC, 11/17/82)”
The real question is that if one is born to two American citizens, on American Territory, but not in Hawii, and ya mudda hated pineapple, are you still eligible for welfare in Tennessee?
_________________________________________
Hatin pinyapple ya cin get ya a pass..
but ya betta eat lotsa grets
yeppers y’all for eva meeil..
and sweet tea drink galans of thet..
y’all en reeil America heeear
Lotsa presydants frum tha souf..
:)
Based upon having studied the efforts of George Mason as well as his writings and statements of which there is a reliable record, you are correct regarding the Constitution as originally ratified. Mason refused to put his hand to it at the Convention, walking out rather than signing it, because he regarded it as wholly overturning the common law. And, it did. There was no vestige of it.
Mason then immediately began a campaign via letters and pamphlets that was quite influential in numerous States, to include a Bill Of Rights along the lines of that which he himself put together for his home State of Virginia. This refusal and this campaign jeopardized ratification. It caused a major rift between Mason and his old friend and neighbor George Washington.
James Madison intervened as a go-between. Madison is credited with being the so-called father of The Bill Of Rights, incorporated into the national law via a series of Constitutional Amendments entered into immediately after ratification.
As a result, there is Common Law in United States law, but it was limited entirely to those Amendments intended to encorporate the Bill Of Rights. We have George Mason to thank for that. His insistence exacted a huge toll upon him personally, and in particular, historically speaking.
Few know him as a Founder. But, that he was.
“I doubt that would happen. I think they would rely on Hawaii. Even if you think the birth certificate is a fake, then it’s clear that any such fake would have to have been done with the cooperation of the Hawaii Department of Health.”
Judge Carter said that, but a state BC is only prima facie evidence that can be challenged in a trial on the merits, which has never occurred.
Sheriff Arpaio’s posse has stated that they have evidence that HI DOH is colluding in a criminal conspiracy to conceal the forgery of Barry’s LFBC. Looking at the available evidence and “tells,” I concur. (I am a retired Certified Fraud Examiner).
Numerous governors and state officials are in jail for criminal conspiracies including Barry’s long-time IL governor pal, and HI is one of the most corrupt states in the union, IIRC.
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.