It seems like EVERYBODY who talks about this does so from the starting point of trying to "prove" or "disprove" that one candidate or another is a natural born citizen.
That is COMPLETELY the wrong approach to take. Don't assume a premise and then try to force evidence to support you. Start with ALL the evidence and then let it lead where it will. Whether the evidence supports or doesn't support your chosen candidate is NOT what is important.
Only people born of illegal immigrants who sneak over the border to bear them are natural born citizens. Ask Obola. He’ll tell you.
One is NATURALLY a US citizen when one cannot be anything else.
Born here of citizen parents.
Natural born citizen.
Which is what I did with Obama years ago, concluding at that time that he was NOT natural born because his father was a Kenyan WITH NO INTENTION OF EVER BECOMING A U.S. Citizen. His birthplace could not have mattered less.
Cruz- not eligible
Rubio- not eligible
Obama- not eligible
McCain- arguably not eligible
Romney- arguably not eligible
I understand it to mean born in any of the several united States to parents who are both citizens of the United States.
Oh come on, every one knows that cruz, the harvard educated constitutional lawyer/expert, knows the constitution better then those who wrote it in the first place.
This law was passed by many of the same men who wrote the Constitution. HERE is the relevant law. Amd here is the clause that the very first Congress (including many of the authors of the Constitution) said about foreign-born children [emphasis added]:
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United StatesCruz's was an NBC, and his father did reside in the U.S.
I’m nominally a Trumpster, but this is going nowhere, is getting old, and makes us look stupid.
If the courts wouldn’t touch this issue with respect to Obama, they won’t touch it with respect to Cruz. Well, unless it can be used to help get Hillary in office. All this Idiocy does is help that effort!
Also, it’s just plain wrong. According to this argument, a direct ancestor of George Washington and John Hancock would not be a “natural born citizen” if he or she was born (for example prematurely) while the parents were on vacation in Europe. Ridiculous.
Please just stop.
PS There are actual statutes passed within Congress’ legitimate Consititional powers that say Cruz is natural born. The courts regularly uphold statutes that aren’t passed within those powers, so they aren’t about to touch these.
There has been a new innovation in how to amend the Constitution and/or make it say what you want it to say.
It only requires one to post in very large font using a number of exclamation marks.
The Constitution will shortly be amended, I predict.
Ridiculous. The first Congress recognized as “natural-born” anyone born oversees to American citizens.
Oh, and as far as caring about the Constitution goes, who do you think would do more to uphold our rights under the Constitution: Cruz, Trump or Hillary (or shudder, Sanders)?!
My money is on Cruz or Trump.
But go ahead and keep pushing an issue that can only help Hillary or Sanders. (It nominally hurts Cruz, but not to any real extent. It definitely hurts Trump by making us Trump supporters look like lunatics and idiots.) Yeah, that will be good for the Constitution!
To assume that the phrase as used in Article II was based on English common law because the Framers were familiar with it and because English common law influenced American law on issues apart from the choice of language in the presidential eligibility clause is to beg the question. This “leap” does not prove anything about the choice of language used in the phrase. It is astonishing how this “leap” is cited as proof over and over again by people claiming to be objective scholars. In particular it ignores the clear distinction in the minds of the Framers between being a subject of a monarch and being a citizen in charge of a republic.
Since the Democrats have had an illegal alien in the White House for seven years, the Republicans are entitled to have at least one President who is a citizen, even though non-NBC.
"IV.CONCLUSION
The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a 'natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United States?â€
The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion : aside from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the answer is “no.â€
One issue I’ve never seen addressed is whether this particular presidential eligibility question was intended to apply only to the situation at the time - when the country was brand new and when the sense of just having broken free from foreign domination was very strong - or whether it was intended to be a permanent feature of the presidency.
You mean Abdul born in Saudi Arabia to a Saudi father and an American mother is not a natural born citizen of United States of America?
I bet the Catholic University of America would take a very different view regarding the citizenship of illegal aliens.
“Original intent” is one of the last things a Court considers. Have argued it a number of times and it is almost a judicial axiom to say that ... judges do NOT care.
It’s a tricky question.
When my wife went into labor eight weeks early in Paris (both of us natural born US citizens, on our final vacation as just a couple), would that have prevented our oldest child from being a natural born citizen if a French doctor had not been able to stop her labor?
I suspect even 200 years ago, “natural born citizen” would have been like porn - you know it when you see it, but not everyone would have agreed. I suspect an “anchor baby” born here to someone illegally on our soil or even to a tourist or merchant who was not a legal permanent resident would not have been considered a natural born citizen back then.
I would like to see Congress or even a constitutional amendment define the term simply. Hard cases make bad law, and we want to at least outline who (other than those on the vague borderlines that crop up) clearly is or is not a natural born citizen.
So, just as many of us here have said, the question of Cruz’ eligibility is... settled. So all the nay sayers, stop your carping. Obama was not the first time the question was raised.
This is all I’m going to say on the matter!!!
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/