Posted on 01/15/2016 1:15:14 PM PST by Isara
Dishonesty on Cruz’s part. He knows what the Constitution and 6 USSC cases says here and it does not require both parents of a candidate be Natural Born citizens, they only need to be citizens Legally created or otherwise at the time of his birth.
*********************************************************************************
What SPECIFIC section of the Constitution spells out those details?
Trump’s mo0ther became a naturalized citizen 4 years before he was born. This line of reasoning from Cruz is pure BS. I think his mother rescinded her U.S. citizenship to become a Canadian citizen, so she could vote there. Why else would Cruz have some records sealed? He isn’t telling the truth and keeps digging that hole a little deeper. By the way, did he comb is hair with a greasy pork chop last night? Ewwwwwwwwwww.
This line of reasoning from Cruz is pure BS.
Art 2 Sec 1:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen†to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€.
Did he word his remark in an awkward way and set him self up for this?
Yes, but I don't believe it is what he really meant and it is a non issue, imo.
The difference is that Trump was born in the U.S. Cruz is a snake.
Trump’s mo0ther became a naturalized citizen 4 years before he was born.
******************************************************************************
But did Great Britain FORMALLY rescind her British citizenship? If not, she was had dual-citizenship American and British (a country with which the founding fathers had engaged in a long and vicious war) with potential divided loyalties. Trump would therefore not be a natural born citizen.
By the way, I think Trump needs to clear all these questions and reservations about his status as a natural born citizen ASAP. I suggest that with true feelings of warmth for Trump and want him to do that for his own benefit. :^)
Which part of the constitution spells out Bills of Attainder?
Yet we know what they are.
“He hurts himself with false framing.”
Yes, but that did not keep Rush and Hannity from being jubilant.
I just heard Marco Rubio explain to Hannity that he:
1. is for deportation of illegals, but only for those who have been here less than twelve years.
2. but the deportation will not start until our borders are secure, and then the secure border will allow the nation to have a “conversation” about what to do. He failed to mention or explain why the secure border only can allow a conversation, why it is necessary to wait for a secure border, or that a conversation has been ongoing for about twenty years.
3. those who have been hear for longer than twelve years will have to learn the language, pay a fine, get a green card, and wait for twelve years or so before they can become legal.
4. was doing fast talking, but of course a green card is legalization.
5. all in all, it was nothing but weasel words for amnesty, which he feigns absolute horror over.
Cruz just gets dumber and dumber. Now he is flat out lying about what any description of natural born citizen is.
How can people support him? I don’t see one shred of integrity in that man.
I agree.
I would also add that I don’t think there’s any doubt that Cruz is a stand up supporter of American and it’s ideals.
The problem is, if you allow one ineligible person, you allow idiots like Obama to have a free pass.
As you intimated, the framers had these types of dynamics in mind.
If Obama doesn’t exemplify this situation in glaring detail, no one ever will.
Trump cultists on this forum have advanced the preposterous idea that both parents must be both citizens and born on US soil.
Of course it’s absurd and Cruz was using absurdity to illustrate how the whole birther cabal was ridiculous.
In his own words, Marco is for amnesty. Also, he has never accomplished anything major, has money problems, and is a puppet of his donors. Not somebody I would want in the White House. And what is it with his licking of his lips and now and then breaking into speed talking, like he has to get a memorized speech out of the way?
Guess the USSC is a Trump Cultist then:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen†to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€.
“...like he has to get a memorized speech out of the way?”
So you noticed it too. While he was talking to Hannity, he said, “I am the only one left who can unify the party”, overlooking the fact that most are still in the race. He is so attached to his talking points that he gets confused and got ahead of himself. He must have a stock ready to go.
Exactly. Comparing being born in a foreign country with only one US parent to being born on US SOIL with TWO US parents is STUPID and makes anyone who defends it look stupid.
Enough is enough.
Someone needs to give Ted some legal advice.
Funny thing, I don't believe Obama is eligible for the same reason Cruz isn't.
I'm not going to be a hypocrite and change because it's our guy.
I've spent many hours over the last 9 years studying this issue, you?
All that said, I will still gladly vote for Cruz if he is the nominee, the stakes are too high and as Lincoln said, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
You will not, nor have you ever, seen any post from me saying Cruz shouldn't be elected because of his birth status.
Let me ask you a question, if Cruz were born to two citizen parents, on US soil, would this be an issue?
The fact it is an issue is exactly why the founders used the phrase NBC. They didn't want any question of allegiance for the CIC....unlike all other offices.
What Poland does is of no issue. What Bernie's father did, and what the United States of America did are the only issues.
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.