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

Hotair ^ | 03/23/2015 | Jazz Shaw

[SeekAndFind]

Now that Ted Cruz is officially in the Presidential race, you may rest assured that some of the same people who considered it an insult of titanic proportions to even ask to see President Obama’s birth certificate will be kicking off a similar conversation regarding the Texas Senator. Because, you know… he’s a gosh darn foreigner. For the few of you who may have missed it, Cruz was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba but his mother was a US citizen. As our colleague Guy Benson explained over a year ago, this one isn’t even a question.

For the uninitiated, the Texas Senator and conservative stalwart was born in Calgary, Canada — prompting some to insist that he’s not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. But there are only two types of citizens under the law: Natural born Americans (from birth), and naturalized Americans, who undergo the legal process of becoming a US citizen. Cruz never experienced the latter proceedings because he didn’t need to; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, rendering Cruz an American citizen from the moment of his birth abroad. Meanwhile, Cruz hasn’t even indicated if he has any designs to pursue a White House run — he’s got his hands full in the United States Senate. National Review has more on this preposterous “debate:”

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen.

This was the same conversation that took place in 2007 and 2008 regarding John McCain. (McCain was born in Panama.) At the time, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed on to a simple resolution (along with the rest of the Senate) declaring that Senator McCain was “a natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Given the current, rather toxic climate inside the beltway, I have to wonder if Ted Cruz will be offered the same consideration?

Perhaps a better question, though we’ve kicked this one around here before, is whether or not the Supreme Court will ever rule on this definition once and for all so we can just be done with it. True, we have some federal laws on the books which cover such things and they are frequently referenced when these discussions come up. And there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that this interpretation is any way unconstitutional.

And why would it be? The prevailing wisdom seems to at least have the benefit of sounding reasonable to the layman. Going back to the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that there are only two types of citizens recognized. You are either a citizen at the time of your birth or you become one later by going through the naturalization process. If we have to pick one of these two classes to be “natural born” it seems a rather easy choice.

But, yet again, that answer won’t be “permanent” (for lack of a better word) without the Supremes weighing in on it. And for that to happen, someone would have to challenge it. And that someone would have to have standing to even bring the challenge. You know… the more I think about it, maybe we should just stick with what we have now.

[Impy]

The question has been settled with facts long before now. I will not debate it with you, Mr. Coco Puffs.

[Ray76]

You show up at the end of a thread and your one and only post is a call to zot others.

[Impy]

Your ilk are an embarrassment.

[MamaTexan]

who are textualists and originalists are going to look to that actual wording and the context of the Founding generation for guidance as to intent.

No, honest ones would see it as being for a limited purpose, not try to limp its meaning along for their own ambitions.

---

To paraphrase: In the beginning, the Founders wanted the children of citizens born overseas to be natural born citizens and not naturalized citizens.

But they didn't intend for it to last BEYOND the beginning, or they would have continued it in the 1795 Act.

[Ray76]

You have made a total of three posts in this thread and in every one of them you have done nothing but insult other posters.

[Impy]

Now that Cruz has announced, the time for this master debate is over. I will not discuss the color of the sky with you when you’re telling me it’s orange and purple with flashing gray polkadots.

I happen to be for Walker but Cruz will be President if he’s elected. You can’t stop it. Your position is crazy and embarrassing to this site.

[Nero Germanicus]

The difference in wording in the 1795 Naturalization Act is : “and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”

The 1795 Act was repealed in 1798 and the 1798 Act was repealed in 1802.

There might have been relevance to the term citizen versus natural born citizen between 1795 and 1868, although I know of no legal test of that. But since the 14th Amendment was adopted, there have only been two classes of citizen: born or naturalized.

[Nero Germanicus]

I like debating issues in an open forum. That’s what conservatives do rather than resort to political correct censorship.
If you don’t want to discuss this issue, simply go away.

[Impy]

I will say what I want. Expect myself and others to continue to ridicule Cruz birthers.

[OneWingedShark]

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." — Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich v Gonzales

Or, restated: congress may make laws not applicable under the commerce clause if they impact something that is germane to commerce.
So, I guess we got what we deserve with the ACA dictating we must buy.

[MamaTexan]

there have only been two classes of citizen: born or naturalized.

Those have always been the 2 classes of citizens, but that wasn't the discussion.

The discussion hinged on the repealed naturalization Act...the one YOU said was the only one to mention natural born citizens. The one YOU kept using as some kind of solid, immutable Intent of the Founders despite the fact it's repeal meant it had no further operation in law.

Now you ramble about other repealed acts as if they had some relevance to the subject at hand. LOL!

You're deflecting again.

[OneWingedShark]

“And the children of citizens of the United States who may be born beyond the Sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

So then you agree that those citizens born outside the US needed a law to make them citizens. And look, this act is itself one concerning naturalization! — but the congress cannot make those children of citizens of the United States who may be born beyond the Sea natural born by virtue of a naturalization law; why? Because to do so would make the Constitution's requirements alterable by simple, normal operation of the legislature.

[WhiskeyX]

“And the children of citizens of the United States who may be born beyond the Sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Yes, a manmade law, which is artificial or unnatural, was used to confer certain rights enjoyed by natural born citizens of the United States of America to persons who were formerly foreign citizens owing allegiance to foreign sovereigns, which is naturalization. Likewise, persons who were born with an obligation of allegiance to a foreign sovereign were naturalized as citizens of the United States at birth by the authority of the manmade, artificial, and unnatural State and/or Federal laws of the United States of America. If the same Federal laws should ever be rewritten to deny the same persons such U.S. citizenship at birth, they would no longer be naturalized as U.S. citizens at birth. Natural born citizens, by contrast, cannot have their membership as U.S. citizens at birth repealed, because their U.S. citizenship was acquired by the unwritten law of Nature and not acquired by the authority of any manmade or unnatural law that can be repealed.

[WhiskeyX]

Acquisition of U.S. citizenship at birth by the authority of Federal law is a form of naturalization at birth. Any foreign citizenship and with it an allegiance to a foreign sovereign and an obligation for obedience to foreign laws negates any possibility of qualifying as a natural born citizen who has never been subject to an obligation for obedience to a foreign sovereign and subject to foreign laws.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is a losing proposition; it amounts to "the Constitution wasn't followed, so it doesn't need to be followed" — and in that case you are arguing for unrestrained government.

Non sequitur. The one thing does not follow from the other.

I am arguing that since they broke the rules, and show every inclination to do so again, the rules should not constrain us either. As the French say " À bon chat, bon rat."

[DiogenesLamp]

That is correct. Since 1790 the children of American citizens who may be born beyond the Sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States have always been considered as natural birn citizens. No exceptions. Just as the Founders and the Framers wanted it.

And of course Mr Cognitive dissonance completely leaves out the part where if he has a foreign father, he's not a citizen at all. This is once again, one of those things where you accept the parts you like, and ignore the parts you don't agree with.

[MamaTexan]

I am arguing that since they broke the rules, and show every inclination to do so again, the rules should not constrain us either.

I wouldn't mind so much if breaking the 'rules' didn't mean I would be bearing false witness. By voting for someone I know for a fact isn't eligible, that's exactly what I'd be doing...and that's not something I'm willing to do no matter how much I like someone or agree with them politically.

[Kaslin]

So? His mother was was a US Citizen when he was born, hence that made him a natural born citizen. Like it or not

[DiogenesLamp]

There is the disturbing possibility that no court really looked at the law in depth because they did not want to be seen as taking a serious look at the issue because the defendant was half-black and because of the campaign of ridicule launched by the Great Pretender and his operatives. This would be a substitution of a “rule of ridicule” for the Rule of Law.

And this is exactly what I think. We can see before us right now how much the court is swayed by social pressure from the social classes which they respect. You are right. Not only did everyone on the left attack "birthers" as fools and cretins, so did a large part of the establishment right. Every "birther" was mocked as believing in the same things as the kookiest amongst us.

Indeed, anyone who question Obama's legitimacy was called a "conspiracy nut" as if it was a "great conspiracy" to postulate that that lying liar would lie about his eligibility.

It clearly appears that there are leftists willing to press the issue, despite their general contempt for the Constitution.

Alinsky's rules. Make your opponent live up to his own rules, while ignoring them yourself.

[AmericanVictory]

That is not correct. In federal court the exception was the Hollister case, Judge Robertson acknowledged standing and dismissed the case for an alleged failure to state a claim. His reasoning, I would submit, does not fully withstand scrutiny. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave the appeal short shrift and SCOTUS did not treat the ensuing Cert Petition seriously.

Judge Robertson attempted to sanction lead attorney John D. Hemenway, a World War II and Cold War vet (the latter as an FSO against the communists first in Berlin and then against the Soviets in Moscow). He was the first conservative ever elected President of the American Foreign Service Association or AFSA, whereupon the Kennedies and the late Wayne Hays went after him viciously and forced him down and into retirement as part of their effort to turn the Foreign Service into a corrupt patronage operation of the Boston style. After serving well in the Army in WWII he received a scholarship to the Naval Academy, where he did will an won a Rhodes Scholarship, which, unlike Bill Clinton, he finished and took his degree.

The sanctions attempt was in violation of the law and, consequently, had to be withdrawn when the illegality was pointed out, with Judge Robertson having to face Hemenway's being an accomplished and distinguished American.

Judge Robertson is not a bad judge, and is a very decent person whom I have known for many years, going back to the Civil Rights Movement in which we were both involved. He was very active in and served as a leader of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which was created by the ABA at the urging of JFK when he and his brother suddenly became pro Civil Rights. I am afraid his old loyalties from the Movement betrayed him into blindness in the Hollister case.

I believe that leftists will find levers for standing that leftist judges, who are influenced by the left wing dominance of the lamestream functioning as the house organ of the leviathan state, will respond to.