Posted on 01/27/2016 10:15:54 AM PST by TangledUpInBlue
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." The original structure of the Constitution does suggest that "natural born" was meant to contain a geographic component of birth in the United States. The "Inhabitant" requirements for senators and representatives in Article I of the Constitution clearly were intended to be geographic. Since the qualifications stated for president contain no other obvious parallel geographic reference, it would seem the framers meant the "natural born" citizenship requirement for president to refer to those born geographically in the United States.
The framers, however, contemplated later migration into the United States and authorized Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to provide means of acquiring citizenship by naturalization for those who were not natural born citizens. Thus, as originally drafted, the Constitution recognized only two means of acquiring national citizenship – "natural born" citizens (birthright citizenship), and naturalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Natural Born Citizenship is citizenship derived by virtue of the circumstances of birth either Jus Soli (by the soil) or Jus Sanguinis (by the blood). It is citizenship not made by judicial ruling or Congressional act but in existence at the moment of birth. No naturalization required.
Ted Cruz has never been through a naturalization process in the US. He was a natural born citizen at birth (Jus Sanguinis) and eligible to be a US Senator (citizenship requirement), exercising all rights of citizenship without requiring naturalization.
Oxford Dictionary Second Edition
Volume X page 245
“1709 Act 7 Anne c. 5...The Children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the Liegeance of her Majesty...shall be deemed...to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom.”
That 1709 law was I believe what the founders would have gone by. Anne was Queen of England in 1709.
After Obama, any TRUE patriotic conservative cares. I do.
Give it a rest. You won’t convince anyone.
Exactly.
He didn’t need to be naturalized, therefore he is natural born. Duh.
Atlantic Coast Conference eligibility?
Crazy, huh?
Soooo, if Trump names Cruz as his VP that will put you in a tight spot.
Can I presume you will drop your support for Trump based on your perception of his violating the Constitution?
Or will it all be OK after Trump has some really, really good Constitutional law people, that are super at that sorta stuff, look it over and deem Cruz to be OK?
Original intent was to ensure that England (or France or Germany) couldn't simply ship over someone who was popular at home and have them seize the presidency.
As global travel of the period could involve years out of country, I sincerely doubt that the intention at any point would be to deny the children of those travelers their birthrights. If there was any question to that, the 1790 naturalization act answered that, citizenship is automatically inherited in the act of being born to citizens so long as the father was at least a resident.
So, original intent is verified through law of the time. Cruz is a naturally born citizen by original intent, and by later acts.
This makes the most sense of any argument.
That 1790 Act was repealed in 1795 with that definition specifically removed.
“Naural born” means by nature. Geography has nothing to do with it. That is why a child born to two parents who are US citizens but stationed overseas in the military for instance, is a natural born citizen.That is also why arguing over where Obama was born was nonsensical. The framers of the Constitution would have asked not WHERE he was born, but to whom.
Here is the best explanation and analysis of the subject available in a concise and brief video by a renowned constitutional attorney and scholar:
.
There is a difference.
We should all agree that this needs to be resolved one way or the other. A suit has already been filed. Standing may require a candidate plaintiff. That remains to be seen but this is a continuing issue and we don’t just dogmatically wish it away. It will be resolved if he gets the nomination. In fact it may enter the court over whether the Canadian born Senator can be on a ballot for a state primary. There are several pending challenges opening— one in Utah. 35% of Republicans think it is an issue in Iowa. Let’s just find out instead of sticking our heads in the sand and quit guessing.
Ted never went through that process because he was born a natural U.S. citizen due to a parent. My wife on the other hand, is a naturalized citizen. That is the difference.
At the moment, I’d support Trump and/or Cruz. I’m just posting interesting articles to spur discussion. Don’t infer agreement with them on my part.
You are correct.
A man made law gave him citizenship. If Cruz was born in 1930 he would not be a US citizen.
His status as a citizen is covered by the Naturalization Laws, therefore he is not natural born citizen.
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.