Posted on 11/13/2015 6:01:14 AM PST by Michael van der Galien
The last few days, a new group of birthers has started to harass me: most of them Trump-supporters. The target of these new birthers? Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas.
These people tell me that Cruz is ineligible to be president because he’s supposedly not a “natural born citizen.†When I then ask these folks why that is, they point at the constitution, which says only a “natural born citizen†can become president.
Great. However, that doesn’t actually answer my question. The Constitution states that only a “natural born citizen†can become president, but doesn’t actually explain what that is exactly.
However, the founding fathers did explain what they meant by it, and afterwards, there were several statues that explain it further. The point being: a natural born citizen is anyone born of an American parent, providing that the parent spent a certain amount of years in the United States as an adult.
Ted Cruz’s mother has lived in the U.S. for most of her life – both before and after Ted was born. As such, Ted is a natural born citizen, even though his mother gave birth in Canada.
Don’t believe me? Just listen to this audioclip from Mark Levin.
[WATCH VIDEO]
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
That is what I think. It doesn't matter if he wins in court, this is a propaganda battle, not a legal battle.
Well Cruz is at least as natural born as Barack H. Obama.
“Natural Born Citizen” requirement for president is now a dead letter. Obama proved this.
If this prove to be a disqualifying issue, then Obama’s last 8 years can be purged, since he is clearly not natural born.
**************
Yes Ted is. It took Ted's father, Rafael Cruz, until 2005 to renounce his
Canadian citizenship and obtain US citizenship.
Obozo can’t be prez because his mom was not old enough to pass u.s. citizenship to him.
She needed to be 19 and was only 18.
INS rules at the time for a birth outside the u.s. were that the mom be “resident in u.s. for 5 years past age 14”.
Nope, Cruz’ mom was old enough to pass u.s. citizenship on to Ted.
Contrast that with 0’s situation.
See #25
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3359678/posts?page=25#25
If the Prince of Wales married an American woman and sired a son who was born in Canada, would that potential future King of England also be a natural born citizen of the United States?
Yes.
Thomas Paine in 1791 said no.
The closest contemporary writing to the ratification of the Constitution on the subject of natural born citizens being of two citizen parents is Thomas Paine's 1791 book The Rights of Man, written just two years after ratification.
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law that Congress passed in 1790, it is a window into it's contemporary understanding.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution and a year after the law passed in 1790. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ
Bump for excellence.
Think about all of the great leaders we could have if we just loosen up. Who cares when or if someone’s father ever became a US citizen? It’s what in their hearts not their long form birth certificates.
The old fashioned “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is too restrictive.
Sure, Putin could father a child with an American woman, but rest assured that child could not serve as POTUS for 35 years. Highly unlikely.
God Bless FR for finally removing the “natural born citizen” topic.
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.