From his conclusion: This is a very confusing area as to which scholars acting in good faith disagree, although there is a clear weight of authority. But those disagreements, in a sense, are the solution.
A reasonable reading of the plain text of the Constitution supports Rubio, Jindal and Cruz being “natural born Citizen[s]” because they were citizens by birth. There is no clear, demonstrable intent otherwise from the Framers or clear, commonly understood use of the term to the contrary at the time of drafting the Constitution. The British term “natural born Subject” as well as concepts of “natural law” were not clearly relied upon by the Framers, and are in themselves not clearly contradictory to this plain reading of the text.
The burden should be on those challenging otherwise eligible candidates to demonstrate through clear and convincing historical evidence and legal argument why such persons should be disqualified. That has not happened so far, and if two hundred years of scholarship is any indication, it never will happen.
The ultimate arbiter on the issue likely is to be voters, not Supreme Court Justices.
How can people who support the Kenyan have the balls to argue anyone elses NBC status?
So what should I call the useful idiots who insist that Ted Cruz can't be President?
If you need to argue or comment please read the article, it is filled with much more information than I can set here, and is very good.
Yes, it concludes Cruz is eligible, but read it, particularly if you are an eligibility geek.
Have at it.
“The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution...”
Which would indicate it has a very special and significant meaning.....
The currant occupant of the White House is under an exceedingly dark cloud when it comes to birth and origins. His minions ought to know better than to make a stink over the subject.
This constitutional scholar/attorney with impeccable credentials explains in 6 minutes what a true natural born Citizen is that the framers of the presidential clause intended to hold the office of the presidency. Listen very good and let it soak in.
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
Liberty amendment Idea.
To be eligible for president one must have spent 16 years out of their first 20 years of life within the borders of the United States.
The “Formative Years” Amendment.
Because if you grew up in the United States you are more likely to have allegiance to the country.
Brilliant minds think alike. :-)
I have made this same point over and over since the discussions began here on Free Republic.
The burden of proof of ineligibility lies on those asserting it. The evidence must be clear and convincing and if the case were even given a hearing in court, then all reasonable doubt would be given to Ted Cruz.
Hence, there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that any court will determine that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, or as Mr. Jacobson noted "natural born Citizen" with the capitals only on the term Citizen.
So those who want to insist that Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen will have to be their own judge and jury on the subject.
If denying Ted Cruz his rightful inheritance as a natural born Citizen is more important than saving the country from Tryanny, then vote for someone else. Vote For the GOP-E candidate. Vote for Hillary. But don't use Free Republic as your forum to infect the unwary with your insane notions that Ted Cruz is not a NBC. He is. Get over it!
Everyone.... Read this article!
The problem with the assertions in #5 and #6 is that they are fundamentally incorrect. In the first naturalization act passed by the first Congress and signed by George Washington, the words “natural born citizen” are used. Further, the section that contains those words clearly show that NBC status is tied to status obtained at birth and that such a birth does not require birth on US soil or inside US jurisdiction.
Thanks very much.
Ted Cruz for POTUS 2016!
It should be clear from the emphasized and underlined words, that the Framers meant the restrictions of "natural-born citizen" to be the "posterity" of "ourselves" (We the People).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
They wanted the highest office of the land to be "secure" by limiting it to the "posterity" of "We the People of the United States."
-PJ
:: The ultimate arbiter on the issue likely is to be voters, not Supreme Court Justices.
Ultimately, your argument rests on, “Obama was voted to be POTUS, so can Rubio/Jindal/Cruz”.
My arguments rest on, “Madison and Jefferson said so.”
Looks like a stand off between the modernists and the orginalists.
I can empathasize with patriots who want a conservative hero in the Oval Office who will lead the country. After all, most patriots grew up under our unconstitutionally big federal government and consequently think that it is normal, “American,” for Congress and the Oval Office to regulate so many aspects of our lives.
And even though I am a strict constitutionalist, I will reluctantly support whatever non-qualified conservative candidate for the Oval Office that Obama guard dog Fx News chooses for conservatives for the 2016 presidential race. This is because, although the federal government’s constitutionally-limited powers are easy enough for most people to understand, the problem is the following.
The consequence of many patriots having been taught what are actually perversions of the Constitution makes the RE-learning curve for understanding the federal government’s limited powers difficult and time-consuming. So it’s probably going to take many election cycles before patriots get a grip on the idea that the Oval Office is actually far from being the most powerful office in the land as the pro-OWG Progressive Movement would like everybody to think.
"..... because I want it to be that way; that works for me." Birthers are not nuts, and Obama is not NBC, that is why all the pettifogging, lying, and concealment.
Occam's Razor.
Cruz is clearly a NBC.
He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother.
What is all the fuss about?
Surely she jests. Then why did they use it? She obviously never read the Supreme Court decisions on the matter like Justice Waite in Minor versus Happersett:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
“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.
obumpa
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.
Jim, why are threads like this one, which does nothing except cause more bad blood at FR between freepers, being tolerated if we are going to give our full support to Ted if he runs?