Posted on 01/11/2016 8:19:23 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% would not be considered a "natural born citizen" under an originalist view of the Constitution.
From the LA Times:
Under either a textualist or a "living Constitution" theory, Cruz is a "natural born Citizen," eligible to be president; under an originalist view, however, he isn't. It's the conservative theory that would exclude the conservative Cruz from presidential eligibility.
To an originalist, a "natural born Citizen" is a person who is a citizen of the United States under "natural" principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis -- the law of blood -- held that a child's citizenship flowed from the parents' allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Cruz wasn't born here. He was born in Canuckistan, where the only way they can receive citizenship of any kind is via congress, and, that, only a type of naturalization that is instant at birth. His father is not an American citizen, nor was he born here in the US, and is, therefore, unable to receive natural born status.
This law professor is considered an expert by the conservative Federalist Law society, according to Breitbart, which has done another article on him.
It be a "living document" sort of argument, as neither the 14th or 19th amendment were meant to change the definition of natural born citizen as understood by the founders. The proper mode would be to amend the constitution so Cruz would be eligible.
Thanks Finny. You’ve established for us that you’re a Ted Cruz supporter. You’ve not established anything else for us.
Fact of the matter is, the “spirit” of somebody’s upbringing and presumed patriotism means absolutely zilch here. The law does not take it into account at all. It does not matter.
Cruz and Obama are both on the same ground.
They both were born on foreign soil to parents of whom only one was a US citizen.
As such, neither of them are “natural born” citizens. BOTH of them are “naturalised” citizens on the basis that their claims to citizenship were established by congressional statute under Congress’ authority to establish uniform rules of naturalisation. Under natural law and English common law alone, neither of them would be natural born American citizens.
If you don’t like that, well, too bad. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it. I’m not interested in “shutting up” just because you don’t like the fact that I said something about your candidate you didn’t like. In fact, I’m frankly getting tired of all you people - regardless of candidate - who think the particular politician you’ve decided to latch onto is some special little snowflake who shouldn’t ever be criticised or questioned.
“I find it most interesting if so many people wish to create a third class of citizen. There are only two types of citizen in the United States under the law as presently understood and enforced are a citizen at birth and a naturalized citizen. There is no third if anyone can find a third classification and statute I would like to see it.”
You’re asking for a statute to make a natural born citizen, which is not possible. The Constitution did not grant the Congress the power to establish a uniform Rule for Naturalization of natural born citizens. The Constitution did not do so, because you cannot naturalize a person to become a citizen when the person was already born a citizen by the authority of natural law (and God). Instead, the Constitution granted the Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, which means Congress was granted the power to take non-citizens and make them by the authority of manmade statutory law persons who henceforth were to be “considered as” or accepted as if they were actual citizens at birth similar to but not exactly enjoying the same rights and duties as an actual natural born citizen. Consequently, statutory law conferring the status of natural born citizen is not possible and contrary to the meaning of the phrase. Natural born citizens exist under the authority of natural law and outside the authority of statutory Federal Law.
“Since a person who is born and is a citizen at the time of birth is not naturalized they are born a citizen thus unless you discount c-section births they are a natural born citizen.”
Totally wrong. All grants of citizenship are by definition some form of naturalization. Those examples involving the statutory grant of citizenship at birth are a form of naturalization at birth and collective naturalization at birth currently defined under 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. Those examples involving the statutory grant of citizenship after birth are a form of naturalization to be found under 8 U.S. Code Part II - Nationality Through Naturalization. Examples of granting actual natural born citizenship are by their definition not going to be found in any statutory law, because only God’s natural law can grant that form of citizenship. This is the ripping point for so many people in these natural born discussions. They fail to realize those of us who were born with our natural born citizenship did not acquire that citizenship because some government granted that citizenship to us. We acquired natural born citizenship by being born under the sole allegiance of the United States with two U.S. citizen parents. All other people acquired their citizenship acquired the U.S. citizenship only because the Constitution granted the Congress the power to make statutory laws that would in turn grant alien born persons to be granted U.S. citizenship retroactive at birth or after birth.
And a member of the faculty at one of trump’s alma maters.
He had the ability to get Canadian citizenship but he never asserted that citizenship. By your definition Donald Trump is never renounce his British citizenship which he is equally entitled to as cruise through his mother.
“What would a law from 1709 have to do with anything?”
That was a typo. It was supposed to be 1790.
Except Trump isn't a British citizen. Trump's mother was a naturalized citizen before he was born, to a father who is an American citizen, born right here on American soil.
Cruz is the son of a Cuban turned Canadian who was born in Canuckistan, where no good thing ever comes.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal...
Actually, he likely is a British national. Yep, trump likely has dual nationality. Although his mother became an American citizen before he was born, according to British law, she never properly renounced her British citizenship. British nationality passes from the parent to the child (so long as the parrnt, at some time in his/her life, lived in Great Britain.
Has trump renounced his British nationality? Does that raise questions of loyalty? More importantly, does that mean he’s not a natural born citizen? Of course not. The laws of another country granting citizenship or nationality are irrelevant to our law.
It amazes me that folks who are promoting Ted Cruz as a True Conservative would abandon original intent when interpreting the Constitution with respect to their candidate. The original intent for Natural Born Citizen born outside of US territory was through the father’s citizenship, not the mother’s. The evidence shows that Ted’s father was a Canadian citizen when Ted was born, in Canada. Ted has admitted to being a Canadian citizen up until 18 months ago.
Why do we need this kind of trouble with our nominee? Ted can spend some more time in the Senate, and then President Trump can appoint him to the Supreme Court. To me, this seems like a better use of talents.
Well...I wouldn't go that far. Canada has produced some pretty good television shows.
:-)
Your stupidity has now been exposed for all to see.
Sure. And in the early 20th Century, a woman would lose her US citizenship by marrying an alien. Maybe this genius hasn’t heard that laws change, and that the US Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” which is the great irony here. Liberals have tried to toss the Constitution for their own agenda, using the “living, breathing document” ruse, yet given a circumstance in which the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act defines one who is a US citizen at birth, they haul out the “originalist” BS.
Lee clerked for Justice David “In the closet” Souter.
Cruz clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist.
I’d hazard a guess that Lee’s analysis is colored both by left-wing political views and a personal axe to grind.
Harvard Legal Prof. Larry Tribe, a real heavyweight says its an open question.
Hey this guy Tribe is one of the top constitutional legal scholars, I think Ted should get it decided, and not just dismiss a challenge.
I would love to see Ted serve. But first things first.
Under the current theory that says Ted is a Natural Born Citizen, the Royal Princes and Princesses of Jordan are also Natural Born Citizens. Their mother was born a US Citizen.
________
You are correct. Queen Noor and her husband The King, were American Citizens. The King’s power came from Mohammed’s bloodline, the man himself was born in the US and was an American citizen. Wild isn’t it?
Only eight of the founding fathers were immigrants. The rest were born on this soil. Four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies
Is this NBC question fair game? Well Donald Trump was grilled over his citizenship in 2011 when he went on “the shows” to try to generate interest in looking at Obama’s legitimacy.
In this article from WND “NOW LOOK WHO’S GETTING GRILLED OVER ELIGIBILITY ‘Natural born’ citizenship questions go beyond Obama to GOP potential”
http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/281157/
Trump put himself out there in 2011. It certainly did not enrich him. He did accomplish getting Obama to release his long form birth certificate. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-history-raising-birther-questions-president-obama/story?id=33861832
How will America protect itself from a Manchurian Presidential candidate? I’m watching European countries with great interest. Germany has been sold out.
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.