Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
I’ve cited the law, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), which you then cite back claiming it makes Cruz eligible - it’s codified naturalization law!
Cruz is a U.S. Citizen at birth by statute. He is a naturalized citizen.
“Senator Ted Cruz was a U.S. Citizen at birth period”
Yes he is a U.S. Citizen but to be president it takes more than being a U.S. Citizen, it takes a natural born Citizen.
See here the presidential clause:
[No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President]; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
According to the presidential clause, the only time a Citizen could become president was only at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Ted Cruz doesn’t pass the eligibility test since as you admitted, he is a U.S. Citizen.
All sounds good but then the Naturalization Act of 1790 says this...
All sounds good but then the Naturalization Act of 1790 says this...
Please cite a US Legal source that defines ‘natural born” and a LEGAL definition that defines it in such a way as to exclude anyone born to only 1 US born parent.
Like it or not there is not one which is why we ended up with that POS 0dumbo
I was responding to a posting to me on my computer by you dated July 22,2013 @6:51 pm. I have to believe you have directed a posting to me contrary to your claim.
Yes, derivative citizenship by naturalization statute is naturalization. Is there a point you are trying to make?
LOL. You're mind is easily boggled.
Read this...
Does this act apply to Cruz?
Read the part where is mentions “natural born”.
You are correct
MY error
Does this act apply to Cruz?
has the naturalization Act of 1790 been updated since then?
If it has been updated which standards or policies are in effect?
Those from 1790 or from more current?
And you're easily amused, apparently.
I expect it from historical writings, but my reference was to people TODAY (guess you missed that part) who want to wipe out half of a child's heritage.
“All that means is Cruz is a citizen by statute, but not a natural born Citizen by natural law.”
Alexander Hamilton told us specifically where to look for the meaning of terms in the Constitution. In a 1795 legal brief on carriage taxes (direct and indirect taxes), Hamilton begins by saying it is “a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution.”
And he finishes the brief by saying, “... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”
Under English Common Law the children of aliens born in England were natural born subjects and under English statutory laws the children of English subjects born in foreign countries were also natural born subjects.
Under Hamilton’s guidance I would conclude that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Free, you’re either being dishonest here or you missed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which deleted the words “natural born”.
“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 on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. 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 as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed. “
You rely too easily on throw away lines...apparently.
I expect it from historical writings, but my reference was to people TODAY (guess you missed that part) who want to wipe out half of a child's heritage.
You missed the point. The act clearly documents the founders and their colleagues "wiping out half of a child's heritiage".
You neglect the fact that in 1790 the wife’s citizenship was derivative through the husband. In 2013 this is not the case.
The claim that “wiping out half of a child’s heritage” in 1790 is comparable to “wiping out half of a child’s heritage” in 2013 is ridiculous.
That Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795.
Ohhhh, the horror. You do realize that a woman had so little legal standing that she couldn't even RUN for the office of President during that time, don't you?
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.