Posted on 03/23/2015 8:36:35 AM PDT by 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.
You well know that the Madison quote is regarding the seating of a congressman (Smith of SC), NOT the president. Had nothing to do with natural Born Citizenship. You Obots always take it out of context.
Well, let me say this: thank you very much.
It's not inconceivable that your postings helped convince me of the position.
Most people didn’t seem to care and those who could act refused for reasons unclear to me.
There are several reasons that those in different positions wouldn't/couldn't.
At the high/elite end, there were those directly pushing Obama: they wouldn't because it would go against their goals.
(I believe McCain was pushed to 2008 to ensure precedent eroding the NBC-clause, just a matter of degree.)
At the bureaucratic level to rock the boat in that way would piss a lot of people off, especially those in the aforementioned elite class, and it is easier to go along to get along.
As for the courts, they were not willing to take a stance because they were buying into the popularity of [the possibility/reality of (depending on pre-/post-inauguration)] the first black president
— in the particular case of the Supreme Court we see how willing they are to ignore/rewrite/create the law in order to push their agenda (from Roe v. Wade, to Kelo, to the ACA case) and they generally expand government by allowing for ever-more disregard for the Constitution's limits (see Shenck, King, Raich, etc).
In short: the higher-ups don't want it because it would diminish their power, and the lower-downs embrace the idea that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
The military is/was an interesting microcosm here; during the interim of the 2008 election and the inauguration I mentioned to a SFC that if it was found that Obama was ineligible it was the Army's duty to evict him from the office and was given the shut up private
treatment.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
At this point?
Perhaps the same difference that my promise to myself after [to my shame] voting for McCain not to hold my nose
and vote again *mdash; in 2012, because of that promise, I did not vote for Romney, and I don't feel bad about it or betraying principles: I have a clean conscience. Sure, the guy I voted for lost, but I didn't have to violate myself for no good reason... and insofar as that's concerned, I won.
I believe there is plenty/enough information out, some by even Obama and enablers, that give credence to the history of Obama not being any kind of US citizen unless a claim of citizen of the world applies to US citizenship. Obama is a bastard in technical terms as a person and as a US politician for Constitutional integrity. He admitted/indicated to such in his infamous ‘change’ lecture.
I deal with my own education, not yours.
Literally millions of Americans have confirmed that statement from the government websites themselves.
Shouldn't take more than a minute.
Ten minutes tops.
A little longer if you need to see the actual text of the E.O.
I sure as hell would along with the enablers in both parties, the FBI, SS, SCOTUS, IRS, MSM, etc, etc all charged up to and including treason.
If I were President I would also end the IRS, DHS, TSA, DoE, etc. My Sec of State would be John Bolton, my Sec Def would be Col Allen West, my Sec of HHS would be Ben Carson, I would push to have LT General H.R. McMaster promoted to CJCOS.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time, money, or patience to deal with RINOs, the treasonous media, and the stupid LIVs.
That may be, and it is certainly fair for you to call her on it.
Given how many non-Hispanic (practically all) GOP pols are similarly sold out on the issue, I’d certainly not be comfortable calling his position “tribal”.
But I’d still appreciate if you could point out to me where you consider my post to be “wrong”.
And it's been used to justify ignoring the Constitution in USSC rulings. (One of Scailia's blurbs justifying the excesses of the War on Drugs is a good illustration thereof — by that particular case's name eludes me at the moment, sorry.)
This is America. In America, the laws are made by the LEGISLATURE, and Constitutional Amendments are needed to change the Constitution.
I agree that's how it's supposed to be.
However, just look at the ACA ruling, or better Schenck to see how the Constitution can be ignored essentially at will.
NOTHING a President can do or fail to do can establish a “precedent.”
But the courts can/do; just look at things like Kentucky v. King to see how they carve out exceptions over universal constraints in the Constitution.
The President swears to carry out the laws and preserve the written Constitution.
Clinton, Bush, Obama — all noted for being paragons of defending [and following] the Constitution, right?
BTW: In America, there’s no such thing as “a jury of your peers.” That, too, is the rule in ENGLAND. In America, everybody is a peer of everybody else.
Um, if everyone is a peer of everyone then all juries are of your peers.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
The money quote:
“All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Note, no mention of parentage. Born in the US confers US citizenship at birth, thus they do not need to be naturalized and a naturally born US citizens. That is the law of the land. Disagree with it all you want, but that IS the law of the land.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
You open the crazy door, people tend to walk through it.
That’s your ‘money quote’? It says ‘Citizens’, not ‘natural born Citizens’. Care to try again?
Take this crap to another site.
And? His opinion on citizenship didn't change.
You Obots always take it out of context.
Obots? That's the best you can do?
Cruz also has something that I have not seen in any Republican since Reagan, a.....
Oh less than that, even with reading them. Obama signed two executive orders on day one and neither one seals all his records for his entire life.
At this point the Constitution in toto is moot. By elections we just have to try to get the guy who will do the most for our side and-same thing- the least damage to the market. The Legislative and Judicial branches are mere superfluous appendixes now and the Judicial will inevitably become an appendage of the Executive. If the winners of the recent elections had been Conservatives in hearts and in minds this would perhaps be different but that elections actual results ratified the situation as it had become rather than repealing it.
Immigration is not Cruz’s “weakness”, it is a strong point for him.
“”On Tuesday evening, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) reportedly met with 10 GOP House members in his office to strategize how to combat the push for amnesty in the coming months.””
“”Sen. Ted Cruz is dead set against any path to legalization for undocumented immigrants, unless it sends them on a detour back to their native countries, he told talk show host Sean Hannity in an interview on Monday.
The Texas Republican, a Tea Party conservative, said that including a path to citizenship for the undocumented in any immigration reform measure “is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.”
Cruz’s tough stance on legalization puts him at odds with his fellow Cuban-American lawmaker and Tea Party conservative, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, who supports a path to legalization.””
I agree- the constitution says “natural born citizen” not citizen, big differ..-—born in the US borders with (2) US citizen parent”s”— not one parent..
There's also and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
, which brings up the question: are illegal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of the united states? Foreign tourists?
But you bring up something else: even if the 14th unrestrictedly confers NBC status on those born here, Ted Cruz was not.
He was born in Canada, from whence, then, comes his citizenship?
At this point the Constitution in toto is moot. By elections we just have to try to get the guy who will do the most for our side and-same thing- the least damage to the market. The Legislative and Judicial branches are mere superfluous appendices now and the Judicial will inevitably become an appendage of the Executive. The Congress will serve to lend an air of legitimacy to the Ruling dictator or Committee. If the winners of the recent elections had been Conservatives in hearts and in minds this would perhaps be different but that election’s actual results ratified the situation as it had become where it could have/should have repealed it.
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.