Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
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.
**snip**
This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.
As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, it probably never will.
The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.” **snip**
want to go on record again objecting to the term “birther.” If the term were confined to conspiracy theorists, that would be one thing. But it has become a tool to shut down even legitimate debate.
The term was used as a pejorative as part of a deliberate Obama campaign strategy to shut down debate on his issues **snip**
5. The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant **snip**
6. “natural born Citizen” usage at the time of drafting the Constitution is uncertain **snip**
7. British common and statutory law doesn’t solve the problem **snip**
8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
” If I can’t make my full case “
You don’t have a case, that’s the problem. Your entire bullshit argument is to redefine the word “natural” to mean “born to two parents who are US citizens and born on US soil”. I looked in a number of dictionaries but I can’t seem to find that definition anywhere.
The fact is there is a “natural born citizen”, meaning someone who is a citizen by virtue of their birth, and there is “naturalized citizen, meaning they had to take actions after their birth to become a citizen. That’s it. There is no such thing as a “statutory citizen” or any other type of citizen as you internet lawyers try to define. Either you are a citizen at birth or not. Period.
Cruz was a citizen at birth, so he is a “natural born citizen”.
What lousy Americans you guys are for not knowing simple law and history, not knowing civics, and not knowing the English language. Just simply embarrassing.
“12. No Clear Binding Supreme Court Precedent **snip**”
Not true! SCOTUS has opined Congress cannot enlarge or abridge the citizenship rights of a naturalized U.S. Citizen. See Schneider v. Rusk. Any person who follows the prescribed rules and regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as set forth by Congress and signed into law by the President, has a right to U.S. Citizenship.
There is no right to the classification of Natural born citizen. No person can be denied the classification, nor judged to be natural born, because there is not a right to be classified as a natural born citizen.
SCOTUS has opined a naturalized citizen is ineligible to be POTUS. The State Department asserts statutory citizens, such as Cruz, are not naturalized citizens even though they rely on the Immigration and Naturalization Act to exercise their right to U.S. Citizenship.
Really, all this just because Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban dad?
His mother was clearly an American citizen. Hmmm
/johnny
Then how did Barry get to be president. He wasn’t born to parents who were citizens. He was born to a parent who was a citizen and one who was a British subject.
The fact that you would launch an attack against someone who is disarmed out of respect for the property owner says all that needs to be said about who you are and the integrity of your argument.
The guys’ a loon.
He was pushed upon the American electorate who allowed Article 2 Section 1 to be subverted. There were many people who were political opportunist that were behind letting him dodge the eligibility process. The media was a huge factor using the race card if his eligibility was questioned.
corrupt judiciary that’s how
Here is a Constitutional scholar who explains what a true natural born Citizen is. Pay close attention. His credentials are.
Part 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
so what about a foundling of unknown parentage? they are a citizen at birth .
I can quote many other “scholars” that disagree with your scholars, so who is right? Hmm? We the People are right.
Your scholar is an idiot that can’t seem to understand there are natural and naturalized citizens and that is it. It is like being either alive or dead, there is no in between. Your idiot scholar would try to redefine a woman “as a little bit pregnant”.
Isn't Cruz's situation exactly the same as Zero?
That is a false statement and a false conclusion. You omitted the phrase “considered as”, which directly indicates the person is not a natural born citizen, because it required the statute of law to authorize the person to be considered as a natural born citizen for purposes of immigration despite actually not being a natural born citizen. This is the same usage described by Sir edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 and earlier sources. Naturalized persons are also “considered as” citizens despite not being citizens at birth. Their being “considered as” citizens does not make them citizens at birth either. So, your example actually supports the observation of how a person born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents are artificial born citizens of the United States by operation of enactments of law by man with conditional residency requirements; whereas a natural born citizen has such status in the absence of an artificial law or conditional residency requirements. As Sir Edward Coke observed, it is the difference between datus and natus.
No. Obama's story (that the left has accepted) is the he was born in Hawaii to a mother who was a US citizen but whose father never was.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a non-US citizen father but a US citizen mother.
The left made a big deal over the fact that Obama was born in the US, and that the 14th Amendment made him a citizen at birth. Their primary argument was based on the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision. In effect, they were arguing that NBC = born on US soil. So they'll have no problem with self-contradiction when they argue against Cruz's eligibility.
Placekeeper.
“Isn’t Cruz’s situation exactly the same as Zero?”
No, it is not the same situation. Obama’s mother was a minor, not emancipated, and not lawfully capable of transmitting her own U.S. citizenship to her child, regardless of where the child was born. Furthermore, there is still no credible evidence available to demonstrate his birth was within Hawaii or the United States. There is credible evidence Obama is an illegal alien who obtained a U.S. Passport by fraudulent means. It appears likely there may have been a fraudulent application for an Hawaiian birth certificate, but the publicly disclosed documents puporting to be evidence of such a birth certificate are now proven to be frauduklent forgeries according to current law enforcement investigations.
“so what about a foundling of unknown parentage? they are a citizen at birth .”
That’s right, but so what? Prove they are were not born here. You have until their 21st birthday to do so. After that, tough.
Children of minors are not citizens???
OMG
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.