Two Questions for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Nominees

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 17, 2016 | RANDY E. BARNETT

[beelzepug]

Congress = Supreme Court. Need more coffee.

[Lurkinanloomin]

And they left out the language about natural born citizen when they realized their error.

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

There is no automatic citizenship and ZERO NB status for those born abroad. However, children born overseas to a US citizen military parent have been given automatic residency status while they apply for US citizenship and naturalization.

It’s rather telling that Eleanor Daraugh has never stepped forward and stated that she had not sworn allegiance to Canada with her husband, Rafael Cruz. Rafael stated that he was Canadian, and said, “you’d have to ask Eleanor what she did.” The Cruz family is so smart but they can’t remember what country has their allegiance?

If Eleanor had repatriated, she likely helped Ted obtain an American passport; and then Ted should have stated those facts. She was his key to qualifying for American citizenship. Since he traveled to England in his high school senior year, he should have obtained a passport for travel. Unless perhaps his Canadian BC did not require him to obtain a passport.

His father, Rafael, remained a Canadian citizen until 2005, so he is of no help. It is unclear how that decision to remain Canadian for 35 years has effected Rafael’s Medicare coverage and Social Security benefits.

[ro_dreaming]

And if they “shall be considered as natural born citizens” - does that not mean they have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a natural born citizen?

Just curious.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Moot point, that act was repealed and the replacement did not mention natural born citizen.
Congress cannot change the Constitution.

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Obviously not, or the legal minds would not be arguing to abolish the clause:

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3528&context=cklawreview&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcongress%2Battempts%2Bto%2Bchange%2Bnatural%2Bborn%26form%3DAPMCS1#search=%22congress%20attempts%20change%20natural%20born%22

Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 81 Issue 1Symposium: Promises, Commitments, and the Foundations of Contract Law Article 12 December 2005

Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle
Sarah P. Herlihy

For decades they have been trying to globalize our President of the USA.

[Godebert]

"Yes it was repeal but it was ALSO replaced. And that act was repealed and replaced an so on and so forth till we get to the current legislation. And those laws define who is a citizen at birth and does not need to be naturalized.

So dishonest. Even you understand that congress only has the powers of naturalization. They can NOT create a natural born Citizen by statute or positive (man made) law. “Natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.

From these early naturalization statutes, we can see that it is not sufficient to be a born “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment to qualify as a Presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While this amendment constitutionally makes those who qualify under its terms to be “citizens,” it does not nor was it ever intended to make these individuals Article II “natural born Citizens.” The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were well aware that Article II refers to “natural born Citizen” and that Article I and Article IV refer to “Citizen.” By chosing the word “citizen,” in the naturalization act of 1795, they left intact the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it existed under the law of nations which the Founders adopted as the national law of the new United States.

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

And there have been 13 Eligibility Bills (2009-2011) in various states that demand proof of natural born American citizens status prior candidates being included on a respective state ballot. http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/13eligibilitybillstable312.1.11.pdf

With humor, here is the one from Texas HB 529 written by Republican Leo Berman and cosponsored by 24 other Republicans. This is before they knew TEXAS Ted was Canadian, not A Texan by birth:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED - AN ACT relating to certification for placement on the ballot of candidates for president or vice-president of the United States.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 192.033,

Election Code, is amended by
amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (d) to read as
follows:

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (c) or (d), the
secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the
general election ballot the names of the candidates for president
and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on
the ballot.

(d) The secretary of state may not certify the name of a
candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has
presented:

(1) the candidate’s original birth certificate
indicating the name of the hospital and the physician of record; or

(2) for a candidate whose birth was not documented in
the manner required by Subdivision (1), a document certifying the
CANDIDATE’S BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES.

SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

http://openstates.org/tx/bills/82/HB529/

[Lurkinanloomin]

Nancy Pelosi knew Obama was not a natural born citizen. That’s why she filed a different form to Hawaii than the other 49 states.

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Yes, but if we are to pretend soetoro-whomever was born in Hawaii to a single Mom US citizen, he’s more qualified then Felito.

Felito is worse because he’s supposed to be one of ours. Here we learn that most of our side are globalist schmucks willing to go along with anyone from anyplace as long as they have a ‘player’ in position.

When these 25 Texas Congressmen realized their boy was not eligible, they should have sat him down.

Of all the things he has done or said, this is the most troubling. So much for the 3 ‘C’’s = Christian. Conservative. Constitutionalist.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Yes BHO was at least native born, but still not a natural born citizen owing to his status as a British subject that his foreign national father bestowed on him.
Cruz has two strikes, foreign national father and foreign birth.
He thought he would capitalize on the ignorance of the population and the skullduggery of the elites.
After all, if Precedent Obama could get by with it, why couldn’t he?

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Was there dual US citizenship in 1970?

If not, he had no claim to American citizenship unless she repatriated upon her return to the USA.

I’m not sure how a child born on foreign soil to an alien father and a dual citizen mother claims American citizenship.

I hope this will never matter, but for future globullist usurpers, it needs to be rectified.

[Lurkinanloomin]

I have seen reports that Mrs. Cruz had taken Canadian citizenship. It is possible that Ted obtained his from the 1986 amnesty.

[itsahoot]

Screw Orrin Hatch!

Gave us Buzzy Ginsberg. He often says a President is entitled to his selections. We shall soon soon see if that still applies.

[itsahoot]

After all, if Precedent Obama could get by with it, why couldn’t he?

That was an excuse adopted by many, many Freepers. I was opposed to Cruz for that reason, but it was made clear that Cruz was to be considered as NBC no matter whether we liked it or not.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The Constitution comes first for me, unlike charlatans who just mouth the words.

[taxcontrol]

There is no automatic citizenship and ZERO NB status for those born abroad.

Demonstrably false, see USC Title 8 Section 1401 Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth.

Eleanor was a US citizen living in Canada. At the time of Sen Cruz's birth, she had not spent enough time in Canada to qualify for Canadian citizenship.

Subsection G of the above code states that Sen Cruz was a US citizen at birth, has never needed to be naturalized and is naturally born a US Citizen.

[taxcontrol]

Even you understand that congress only has the powers of naturalization

Once again, you make a false assertion. Congress does not only have the power of naturalization. Please reread Article I Section 8. Congress has authority over the rules of naturalization. That is a broader scope. It includes all rules. Who is a citizen, who is not, who needs to be naturalized and who does not.

Actually Congress can confer NBC status because the Constitution grants that specific authority under Article I Section 8. And in the first acts of Congress, they used that very authority to establish the precedence of citizen at birth, via parentage, even if being born beyond the boundaries of the US. That's right, the original founders of this Nation - even signed by George Washington.

[Godebert]

Article 1 defines the powers of congress.

The Tenth Amendment Text:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Back to civics class for you.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

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 thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

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 thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here