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 ...
Three words in a legal document can mean all the difference in the world.
You should know that especially if you’re a lawyer.
My study of writings and events does not agree with you as to eligibility basis of the three mentioned persons for POTUSA. Of course I recognize that one person’s history and civics can have a different take. Too bad that such situations can’t be in the same determinate frame as a result of a a calculus problem. I loved calculus.
Ted Cruz is eligible. Now get off the thread you big dummy!
So, here’s another scenario. A pregnant Mexican citizen comes across the border illegally from Mexico. According to those who have bastardized the fourteenth amendment, the child is an American citizen. The mother and child go back to Mexico where the child is raised until eighteen, or so, then returns to the States. After that child lives here fourteen years and becomes 35, is he/she legally eligible to be president?
Another scenario, that I think connects with that of Sen. Cruz. Pregnant Mexican citizen comes across the border illegally. She has the baby, goes back to Mexico and brings the child up in Mexico. That child, now grown, has a child that at eighteen comes to America. After fourteen years in the country, and at 35, is he/she eligible to be our president?
Today it’s Ted Cruz, tomorrow, with the fast growing Latino population, we will be looking at a Latino president who will have less connection to, and understanding of this country, than does the one in the White House now. I know you’re saying, “This fool’s crazy. This could never happen.” Well, after 911, I never would have thought the American people would elect someone with a Muslim; grandfather, father and stepfather.
I like Ted Cruz, but, I don’t think he’s eligible to be president. I’d like to see him try in hopes it would be challenged in court. I’d also like to see birthright citizenship challenged, but there doesn’t seem to be anyone with a case, and the courage to bring it.
I didn't say that he wasn't also born a Canadian citizen.
He was born both.
Prove it
Agreed, math is much easier.....
:-)
Ted Cruz was born of a US citizen mother while they were working in Canada. He has zero loyalties to Canada.
Oops, maybe the Canadians secretly brainwashed him with pro-Canadian phrases repeatedly put into his mind as he slept. Perhaps he will intervene to make the Canadians NHL champs once again, and ban Dudley do-right cartoons, and not allow us to make fun of them saying "eh?".
I know, you're now saying "this fool's crazy, that would never happen". Well after the Canadian currency became more valuable than ours, who's to say the kind of deviousness those canucks could force on us?
Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 makes Cruz a Canadian.
And I don’t mean that flippantly.
He was a Canadian citizen at birth by virtue of his being born in Canada to parents who were there legally.
He did not become an American citizen until later after the his mother heard back from the US consulate after all the paperwork had been processed and approved. At that point he became a dual citizen and that point was well after his birth and until then he was just a single citizen of Canada.
Had that paperwork never been filed and approved then he would have been just a Canadian citizen.
How dare anyone vote for him!
Just curious but does anybody know the citizenship of his parents. Are they likewise dual citizens of Canada and the US???
His mom was a US citizen at birth. I believe his dad was a Cuban who fled Castro and became a US citizen. He was born in Canada only because they were working in the oil fields there for a couple of years. Cruz jokes something to the effect that his dad would castrate him if he became a RINO.
Your Alinksy tactics can't change natural law and the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
If I owned this site I would boot your sorry ass off the site permanently. Keep this crap up and maybe you will be. Have a little whine with your dinner tonight and you’ll feel much better by getting it out of your system.
There has been much discussion about this topic (for and against) and nobody got the ZOT! You must have earned it! For some strange reason you believe you nailed the truth whereas no one else was as clever as you pretend to be but I guarantee you every one of your points has been covered ad nauseam.
One ,for the most part of life, has to make choices. As to this particular issue my choice is to hold to what I believe history tells me and shows me to be what the Founders meant by words and deeds. As a ‘birther’ from the beginning against Obama’s eligibility I hold to a belief that the strictest criteria for eligibility is needed to hold to the Constitution as I believe the Founders intended. I also believe such criteria are present in historical records. The birth eligibility ‘knot’ of ‘parents and soil’ fits my choice without any mental reservations or conditions.
Yep, your choice.
It’s been quite a while since I had a child but I seem to recall the hospital gave me papers that I had to file with the state and it was the state that issued the birth certificate. I know that my birth certificate was issued by the State of Pennsylvania. The hospital I was born in no longer exists so how could I go there and get a copy of my BC? All births must be registered and placed on public record. You disagree with that?
It’s something that we often don’t think about, so if you know a neonatal nurse ask her how that is taken care of and at what point the parents have a birth certificate in their hands.
Everyone that I knew had it or a temporary in their hands before leaving the hospital.
I would think that the hospital with all the data right there — parents name, child’s name, address, gender, date of birth, etc — would provide that directly to the registrar of births rather than leaving that up to the parents to screw up.
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.