Posted on 12/12/2015 3:56:13 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.â€1×
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen†has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2× (continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at harvardlawreview.org ...
There is nothing to discuss, you’re born a citizen (natural-born, that’s all it means) or you’re not. Anyone saying anything else is kook pulling stuff out of his or her butt.
There was one federal case in which standing was conceded but the judge, a long-time liberal out of the Movement and the LCCRUL, gave the Great Pretender a pass. I don’t believe that there is any guarantee that Senator Cruz will receive equal favoritism and, despite all the bluster, there is no controlling SCOTUS decision directly on point. The matter will not be decided based upon law review articles.
Oh, yes. Respect for the written law, tradition and precedent have recently been the hallmarks of Supreme Court decrees.
I expect if Cruz get the nomination they’ll disqualify him and keep a straight face while doing it. If they can find queer marriage in a penumbra, they’ll find NBC status wherever the Hell they want.
Even a flaky computer generated one will do nicely these days. The precedent has been set.
Maybe. But we have to keep to the right road whether enemies are trying to sabotage it or not.
Mother’s age?
Good point. Very few people will admit that the writers of the Constitution, who argued over each word written, regarded “natural born citizen” as distinct from “citizen” regarding qualification for office of president. They just refuse. According to the Constitution, anyone born on the back side of the moon was a natural born citizen, provided his parents were citizens. The reverse is argued just to muddy up the discussion.
The two solicitors are correct as far as Cruz goes.
They eschew all reference to Obama, and hide his potential NBC problem behind the phrase “subject to certain residency requirements”. Those pesky residency requirements are the legal crux of the theory as to why Obama is not a natural born citizen: that he was born in Kenya to a non-US citizen foreign father, and a US citizen mother who had not been resident in the US a specified number of years (I think 5) after reaching age 14. If born in Kenya or Canada, etc., under those circumstances, Obama would not receive any sort of US citizenship under explicit US law in effect at the time he was born (and changes to this law are explicitly NOT retroactive). I do not ascribe to the Kenyan/foreign birth theory, but Obama promoted and/or acquiesced to the idea for years. Since no verified evidence exists in the public domain to disprove his claim, it remains an open question.
Cruz’s mother met the explicit legal requirements for her son to be a US citizen at birth. It is not a comparable situation to Obama’s.
There are some who have made such an assertion, but they have zero credibility because they have been been able to find a clause of the Constitution, a law, a court finding, an administrative procedure of the U.S. Government, or any of the writings of the founders that supports this notion. This article lays the legal case out pretty clearly.
This ranks right up there with the belief that the moon landing was faked on a Hollywood sound stage.
He’ll make big money telling how he dismantled and destroyed our Republic for Allah.
No. You don't.
1. All persons 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...
How is that not clear? A baby is subject to his parents and they are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever their citizenship is.
Yes. You do.
Obama is not much of an American (having been schooled in Indonesia---a muslim school no less), but is clearly not an agent of Kenyan royalty.
Under my strict definition apparently Rubio would not qualify however under the Harvard Law Review definition he would because he did not go through any naturalization process.
The demoncrats, unless Cruz can provide a Hawaii BC.
Actually they provided a picture of one, not a document.
Obama did not qualify, Cruz does not qualify and Rubio does not qualify. None of them are “natural born citizens.”
There have only been 43 Presidents. The two Grover Clevelands were the same person.
Exactly.
So the thousands of military families that had kids overseas had to go thru some sort of naturalization process of their kids? Right.
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.