Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/03/2015 5:44:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: 2ndDivisionVet

What Constitution?


2 posted on 03/03/2015 5:46:51 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Cruz was a us citizen at birth, therefore a natural born citizen. I dare anyone to tell me what year Cruz was naturalized.


3 posted on 03/03/2015 5:47:05 PM PST by Perdogg (I'm on a no Carb diet- NO Christie Ayotte Romney or Bush - stay outta da Bushesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

4 posted on 03/03/2015 5:49:31 PM PST by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Well, it’s certainly a mute point after the Muslim ass that we have in office now, but I think it’s clear that he is not a natural born citizen in the way it was intended by our founding fathers.


5 posted on 03/03/2015 5:51:03 PM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Precedent Obama has made every anchor baby eligible.

There really hasn’t been a Constitution since Usurpation Day

January 20, 2009

(they all knew)


8 posted on 03/03/2015 5:51:43 PM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace- No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Natural born citizen and, naturalized citizen and native born citizen are not all the same thing. Natural born citizen would have been born on the soil of the country and have both parents as citizens. Otherwise, the founders would not have needed to exempt themselves from that presidential requirement since they obviously became citizens with the establishment of the Constitution.


10 posted on 03/03/2015 6:03:14 PM PST by ricmc2175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We can all debate what the founding fathers meant by natural born citizen. But it seems clear that in reality, nobody is going to challenge Ted Cruz on this issue. A few cases were briught into court regarding Obama but those cases were quickly dismissed.


12 posted on 03/03/2015 6:08:21 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

if Cruz is eligible, even tho he was born in canada to a foreign national parent, then so is Benjamin Netanyahu


13 posted on 03/03/2015 6:09:55 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

none of which will make a bit of difference if he chooses to run, once the opposition research teams go to work on it, with the joyful assistance of the media.


14 posted on 03/03/2015 6:11:14 PM PST by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Why not? We got 0bama didn’t we?


20 posted on 03/03/2015 6:51:11 PM PST by SkyDancer (I Was Told Nobody Is Perfect But Yet, Here I Am ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The Nationality Act of 1940...

Natural law versus positive law.
Natural born citizens don't need positive (man made) law to establish citizenship.

It isn't that hard to understand and it isn't rocket science.

23 posted on 03/03/2015 6:53:05 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
THE TERM "POSITIVE LAW"
In general, the term "positive law" connotes statutes, i.e., law that has been enacted by a duly authorized legislature. [2] As used in this sense, positive law is distinguishable from natural law. The term "natural law", especially as used generally in legal philosophy, refers to a set of universal principles and rules that properly govern moral human conduct. Unlike a statute, natural law is not created by human beings. Rather, natural law is thought to be the preexisting law of nature, which human beings can discover through their capacity for rational analysis. (emphasis in the original)

Rational analysis seems to have disappeared in many places.

27 posted on 03/03/2015 7:24:16 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“The question then is, what is a natural born citizen? I don’t think there is any doubt that being born abroad doesn’t prevent Cruz from being a natural born citizen. If so, any children born to American parents while abroad wouldn’t be Americans. That makes no sense. And to eliminate doubt, Congress expressly passed a law saying children of Americans born outside America were in fact natural born Americans.”

Acts of federal politicians not withstanding it makes no sense to have such a concept as “natural born Citizen” unless it is distinguished from anther kind of citizen
‘naturalized’ or otherwise.


28 posted on 03/03/2015 7:27:13 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If Obama was eligible to serve as President, then just about anybody is.


31 posted on 03/03/2015 7:51:38 PM PST by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

After OMuslim anybody who is willing to put their hand over their heart for the Pledge of Allegiance is eligible.


32 posted on 03/03/2015 7:51:59 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Should Anwar al-Awlaki have been eligible to run for President?

Anwar al-Awlaki was born in 1971 to Yemeni citizens in Las Cruces, New Mexico. US Intelligence reports that, from the age of seven, al-Awlaki was raised abroad, becoming an enemy of America, indoctrinated by the highest powers of Al-Qaida and studying under the same teachers as Osama bin Laden. He eventually influenced various terrorists such as the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, and helped plan the thwarted attack of the “Underwear Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Al- Awlaki’s phone number was found among the contact information of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the man known as “the 20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks.

Those who suggest that there is no distinction between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” would have us believe and accept that such a person might have been eligible to run for President of the US simply because he was born in America. According to defenders of the alleged eligibility of Barack Obama (or Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal), any person born on US soil to one or more alien citizens could be the leader of the free world. At some point, according to that path of logic, this should have included Anwar al-Awlaki.

So, to say that every child born in America is a natural born citizen is also to say that any foreign interest whose child was born in the US could be allowed to raise that child abroad as an enemy of the US and return that child to this country in time to meet the Constitution’s 14-year residency requirement for President. Considering that Islam has been at war with itself and the rest of the world at least since the death of Muhammad almost 1400 years ago, it takes very little imagination to project how a powerful enemy of the US might take the necessary 35 years and other resources to groom a “Manchurian Candidate” for the US Presidency.

If we accept the premise that every person born in the US is a natural born citizen, we allow the establishment of a flawed precedent permitting a family such as that of Anwar al-Awlaki (or a communist government, or a Mexican drug cartel, etc.) to gain control of our country through an orchestrated, long-term attack on the Presidency. This is precisely what the Framers were trying to prevent with the natural born citizen requirement.

A note from John Jay to George Washington explains to us why the Framer’s included the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. It was not, as some would have us believe, to discriminate against any particular race or to keep white men in power. Jay stated outright that the goal was “to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”

This is not a proscription against any ethnic heritage. It was the Framer’s best effort, within the framework of a free society, to restrict the trust of our highest office only to persons with the greatest likelihood of being reared with an abiding love of American values. The Constitution itself argues against the assertion that every child born in America is also a natural born citizen.

Constitutional eligibility requirements for members of the House and Senate include that they be “citizens,” with progressively tighter restrictions on length of residency for Senators and the President. Following that same pattern of progressively increased restrictions, the Constitution also requires that the President must be, not just a citizen, but a “natural born Citizen.”

The natural born citizen requirement is not an incidental flourish of language, but a national security provision of the supreme law of our land. It is not a “big tent” invitation but an intentionally restrictive, but not racist, prohibition. It serves as a foundation on which to permanently secure and preserve the rights and freedoms which are the heritage of all Americans. It’s purpose is to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, that every American President has sole allegiance to the USA by virtue of a childhood steeped in the richness of American culture, anchored in a respect for freedom, emboldened by the spirit of independence and innovation, and committed to the continuation of the noble experiment of a republic created and protected by free men and women and their progeny.


61 posted on 03/04/2015 4:16:22 PM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

According to the US Supreme Court of some time in the 1880s and the intent of the framers, a Natural Born Citizen needs two parents that are American Citizens.


65 posted on 03/06/2015 10:24:41 AM PST by RichardMoore (There is only one issue- Life: dump TV and follow a plant based diet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

US Law, 8 USC 1801, stipulates who is and is not a natural born citizen. Any idiot that thinks they have some coded secret message from the founders that trumps what this law says and what the courts will uphold is an freaking ignorant idiot. Go piss into the wind while you’re at it.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


70 posted on 03/07/2015 1:23:12 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam should be outlawed and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson