Cue the Ted Cruz birthers… again [Once more with feeling: "Is he a natural born citizen?"]

Hotair ^ | 03/23/2015 | Jazz Shaw

[Nero Germanicus]

I know the difference between obiter dictum and the holding in a Supreme Court decision.

I find it highly offensive that anyone would try to deny natural born citizenship status to the children born abroad of U.S. military personnel, risking their very lives outside of the United States, just because someone else doesn’t like Obama or Cruz being eligible. Anyone who acquires a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad” becomes a natural born citizen and needs no naturalization.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156216.pdf

I have on my side of the issue 117 years worth of subsequent court rulings. If you can share with us any examples of persons who were born outside of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who were denied natural born citizen/United States Citizen At Birth status, I would love to hear about them.

Here are the rules that are used to determine exactly who qualifies as a United States Citizen At Birth and therefore does not need naturalization:
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html

[DiogenesLamp]

Mr Cruz’s NBC status flows from the enumerated powers of Congress and the first acts of Congress which established the precedent of being naturally born a US citizen if the person is born abroad to US parents. The current will of Congress is expressed in Title 8 section 1401. In subsection G of the same, you will find the specific qualification for Mr Cruz.

And if Congress changes it's mind again, will the definition of "natural citizen" change with it?

I regard this notion as peculiar, because it seems as if Congress can re-write the constitution at will. They pass a new law, we get a new meaning.

I don't think that is how it is supposed to work. The meanings are supposed to be rigid, until changed by amendment. I don't like flexibility in our constitution. I like it to be rigid, like Iron, so that it's meaning doesn't change by the whim of courts or congress.

I want changes in it's meaning to be difficult, such as the Amendment process. I fear for us all if they can simply redefine words to mean something different.

[samtheman]

I understand. Just saying do not expect the rules of logic, common sense, fairness or even legality to prevail.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think he is the most conservative* on the field; however, I do not believe he is constitutionally eligible and I am not willing to violate my conscience there.

When you are in a boxing match, and your opponent is using brass knuckles, you need to use brass knuckles too.

To insist on standing on principle while your opponent has an advantage will more than likely result in a win for your opponent.

Ted Cruz is one of our best possible candidates, and if he wins the nomination, i'm going to work for and support him. If anyone says "he's not a natural born citizen", I will respond "Neither was Obama."

It would be nice if we all followed the rules, but since others won't, we shouldn't be constrained by them either.

[Nero Germanicus]

Yeah, I hear ya.

[DiogenesLamp]

He was born in the country of Panama, not the Canal Zone. They didn’t have a hospital there yet.

This is a rumor that got started on the internet and simply will not die. Some Liberal troll faked up a Panamanian birth certificate with John McCain's name on it and posted it on the internet along with the allegation that McCain was born off base.

This is not true. McCain was born in the Coco Solo Naval base in the base hospital. I've seen the documents. The Washington Post did a rebuttal of these claims, and they posted the Hospital records from the Coco Solo Naval base, including the name of the Dr who delivered McCain. They also address the claim that "the hospital wasn't built yet." The documents they have show that it was and that it was operating.

[DiogenesLamp]

...and not a single Court in this nation is going to rule otherwise. Not one.

That homosexuals have a right to marry? Do you agree with the courts about this? I don't.

I personally don't think something is true just because the courts say it is. I happen to be able to think for myself, and I have a strong suspicion I am better at thinking and analyzing than they are.

I am certainly not impressed much by what the courts think about things nowadays. They all seem to have a screw loose.

[Nero Germanicus]

The Framers established a process to amend their thinking on any and all constitutional issues. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has become the definitive constitutional interpretation of who is a U.S. citizen. Consistent with that, Congress has passed bills and presidents have signed them into law that even further define citizenship. The Supreme Court has upheld those laws as constitutional.
In 1874 the Supreme Court said that; “The Constitution does not say in words who shall be ‘Natural Born Citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”— Minor v Happersett

“Elsewhere” has turned out to be the bills flowing from the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause that were passed by Congress and signed into law by presidents and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court when challenged.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wrong, do the research. He was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Canal Zone. The base did have a hospital. This crap has been debunked numerous times.

I agree. I'm sick of hearing this lie being continuously spread, and I don't even like John McCain.

You still haven’t said if you believe kids born overseas to US citizen parents at a military base are natural born. You danced around that one with the skill of a ballerina!

I'll answer that. *IF* the correct meaning of "natural born citizen" is based on the principles articulated by Emmerich de Vattel, then his wisdom also comes into play on this particular topic. Here is the word right from the horses' mouth.

This seems eminently sensible to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wrong, do the research. He was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Canal Zone. The base did have a hospital. This crap has been debunked numerous times.

I agree. I'm sick of hearing this lie being continuously spread, and I don't even like John McCain.

You still haven’t said if you believe kids born overseas to US citizen parents at a military base are natural born. You danced around that one with the skill of a ballerina!

I'll answer that. *IF* the correct meaning of "natural born citizen" is based on the principles articulated by Emmerich de Vattel, then his wisdom also comes into play on this particular topic. Here is the word right from the horses' mouth.

This seems eminently sensible to me.

[Cboldt]

-- It is too bad that so many people with their various opinions did not come forth when Obama was running and elected. --

The history has always been available for anybody with the inclination to do the research. I was amazed the first few times I studied a legal issue "in depth," and found that the courts were fabricating the contents of precedent. If courts do it (to achieve the outcome they want) it should be no surprise that the general public does it even more.

And the ones with ears plugged tightest tend to be the most strident defenders, of the outcome they want. Same tactics as courts, cherry-pick from precedent, change the burden of proof, and even redefine the meaning of words.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is so much extraneous and deceptive opinions as to the birth requirements for POTUSA at this point in our history that confusion abounds.

We are drowning in an ocean of bad opinions based on bad facts and bad thinking. The worst of it is the tendency of some people to falsely equate one thing with another.

It is too bad that so many people with their various opinions did not come forth when Obama was running and elected.

Oh, they did, but many of them were people with opinions based on bad facts and bad thinking. They drowned out the reasonable and sensible opinions with their noise.

So much of the conflicting opinions do not stem from actual words or history but instead from personal goals.

And that is the bottom line. A lot of people have opinions based on what they *WANT* to be true, not on what is demonstrably true.

Your pointing out the fuller context of Wong Kim Ark is a remarkable/notable example of such.

I'd like to take the credit for spotting that, but I think it was Ray76 that put me on to it. I just noticed how blatantly it contradicts a lot of people's opinion on the subject. People don't like being confronted with a piece of evidence that contradicts what they wish to believe. Notice the resistance to it's obvious meaning that some people are expressing?

[sargon]

I am certainly not impressed much by what the courts think about things nowadays. They all seem to have a screw loose.

I'm simply saying that there is NO American court that would rule against Cruz's eligibility.

As we have seen, with respect to gay marriage, there are Courts that are sympathetic and those that are not.

It's a well-established principle that Cruz, having been born an American citizen to an American mother in Canada, is therefore Natural Born, and that's why I don't think there is a single court that will ever rule otherwise.

It's simply a cut-and-dried issue, and I totally fail to understand why any conservative would attempt to make an anything of it.

IMHO, the notion that Ted Cruz isn't an NBC basically brings one into the tinfoil hat realm...

[Cboldt]

US State Department sez:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President."

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization", enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, "...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

[DiogenesLamp]

There have been many court rulings finding that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore he is a natural born citizen.

We don't care. We aren't interested in the gas emissions from the courts. We are interested in what is objectively TRUE.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, and once again you are putting fort "Argumentum ad vericundiam" (Arguing from Authority) and "Argumentum ad Populum". (Arguing from Popularity.)

Both are fallacies.

[DiogenesLamp]

Minor v. Happersett was removed from online searches in 2008. Of the case itself. It was restored after the election.

Yeah, funny that. It's as if people didn't want accurate facts out there while confusion was being sown about Obama's "natural citizen" status.

[publius911]

Just bought some socks.
And they are really cool!

But But I'm all done with nut cases. See ya.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just as the birthers continually said Obama was ineligible but the courts disagreed.

The courts disagree about all sorts of common sense issues. They think Homosexuals have a "right" to get married, have a right to civil protection (we used to hang them in 1787 and lock them up in 1957) think the 14th amendment created a "right" to abortion, and tossed religion out of the schools, and that farmers don't have the right to grow their own wheat to feed their own cows.

You might as well say "Let's ask BOZO the CLOWN what he thinks!!!!" The courts are as ridiculous as Bozo the Clown, but not nearly as funny.

"Hi boys and girls! Me and my friends run your Federal courts!!!"

[DiogenesLamp]

All citizens need a Congressional statue, i.e. law to be a US citizen. It’s called title 8 section 1401.

Well unless that Congressional statute was written on July 4, 1776, then I think you are mistaken. I believe US Citizens have existed a long time before that statute ever came about.

In one of their first acts, they specifically stated who was to be considered naturally born and specifically stated that a person born abroad to US parents was a naturally born citizen.

You mean that one entittled "Naturalization act of 1790"?

That specifically says it was a naturalization act, doesn't it?

Obviously that means that it is *NOT* a naturalization act, Cause if it was, they would have used some other term than the word "naturalization."

Everybody knows that when you say "naturalization" you mean "natural born." I understand why people get so confused about this, because "naturalization" sounds exactly like "natural born." I can't even tell the difference when I say it out loud.