Interesting article.
Of course, if this matter is pursued, everyone will know Obama was ineligible.
The Constitution means nothing anymore.
http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd636.htm
Printable View
Interesting article.
Of course, if this matter is pursued, everyone will know Obama was ineligible.
The Constitution means nothing anymore.
http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd636.htm
Cruz was born in Canada. Jindal was born in Lousiana and Rubio born in Florida. I'm sure their birth certificates are as good as our current President's birth certificate.
If Cruz was born in Canada and that's not disputed, then why the Hell is he even in the running?
Because his mother was American which made him American at birth -- the same as my brother and sister who were born at a US military base overseas. He has the most traditionally American views and is the most knowledgeable about the Constitution of any of the candidates running so of course people want to attack him for his Americanism ... [Bang]Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
Military bases like embassies are legally American soil.
Cruz's father was working in the oil industry in Canada. This is not as simple as John McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone, however it does appear that he is qualified to run for President.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...sident-update/
I love it. They want to investigate these men but not one of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Cruz's father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his Ted's birth. Just as Obama's father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
A common interpretation as to why the "natural born citizen" language is included in the eligibility clause is to prevent split allegiances - as we currently are witnessing with Obama and the musloid states.
"Natural Born Citizen" has yet to be taken up by the Supreme Court for definition, though many websites will quote the Naturalization law of 1790 that use the term "natural born citizen." However, the Naturalization law of 1795 repeals the 1790 version and removed the "natural born" portion of that statement - many websites leave this fact out of their argument.
ETA: Naturalization law of 1790 and 1795: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-...ation1790.html
There is a legal difference between "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" and the courts need to take up the definition before another usurper gets elected.
Regardless of their supposed conservative values, I'm personally tired of hearing Cruz and Rubio talk about their roots and pushing for increased immigration. They both appear to have, and are proud of, their split allegiances.
OK, didn't know there was a military base involved. Got nothing against the guy, just wondering.
Carry on.
It's the same rule for someone who happens to be born on foreign soil to American parent(s). You can still be a natural born US citizen if your parent(s) travel abroad, while your mother is pregnant, and you happen to be born in [Insert country here]. The article was clearly written by a conservative, which is very disturbing because of the fact that it's more "eating our own" BS that folks like Kasich and Trump have been doing. Same team, same fight, let's try to remember who the real enemy is here (hint: it ain't a fellow conservative).
NOTE: My argument above is in no way stating my firm belief that Donald Trump is a fellow conservative. [Coffee]
Bypassing the Constitution is unlawful - regardless of political affiliation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Quote:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
It is the distinction between someone born a citizen and someone that buys or becomes a citizen. Why is that hard to understand? You don't want a foreign king coming here and being elected president.
If people are going to get hung up on 'natural', why not say no Caesarean, only vaginal births; without use of IVF or an epidural saddle block. And you have to prove you used the missionary position for conception. That narrows down the pool a bit.
Perhaps it is like the gender crisis - today I feel like a natural born citizen, therefore I am.
You are mis-informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
You don't want someone who's parent is not a citizen.
Just have a look at Obama's parents and his early childhood and it will explain why non-citizen parents are a bad idea for the top position in the U.S.
He is a Musloid first and an American citizen second.
Now take a look at how often Rubio and Cruz speak proudly of their non-US-citizen fathers.
It is not hard to understand the purpose of the amendment - especially in light of our last 7 years.
That is just a single example. The Rubio and Cruz examples obviously don't count since being proud of someone is in no way unpatriotic. Patriotism isn't something that one is born with, regardless of where they are born.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
It is the only example because it was the first time an ineligible candidate was allowed to run and was elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
If you don't like the amendment, work to have it changed.
I'm only pointing out what the constitution says and why our founders included it.
As if fundamentally transforming America was not enough of an example.
Ineligible means ineligible no mater how patriotic you are. We have no lack of eligible people to hold the office, and we have a constitution for very important reasons.
I was making no comment on the amendment, just that it seemed like you were implying that one cannot properly love this country if they have a parent that was born some where else. I've got no qualms with the Constitution or the amendments.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I believe I explained it more thoroughly in post #8
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html
Quote:
WE'RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW
January 13, 2016
If Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen," eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama's mother was a U.S. Citizen.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he's eligible to be president, then so was Obama -- even if he'd been born in Kenya.
As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)
Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a "natural born citizen." (Never let the kids at Kinko's do your legal research.)
I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy -- as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html).
The Constitution says: "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."
The phrase "natural born" is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin's Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin -- a Scot -- could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.
It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance -- not his Scottish blood -- that determined his rights.
Not everyone born on the king's soil would be "natural born." Calvin's Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be "natural" subjects, despite being "born upon his soil." (Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.
Relying on English common law for the meaning of "natural born," the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents" was left to Congress "in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."
Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
That would make no sense if Cruz were a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." (There's an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn't that.)
So Cruz was born a citizen -- under our naturalization laws -- but is not a "natural born citizen" -- under our Constitution.
I keep reading the arguments in favor of Cruz being a "natural born citizen," but don't see any history, any Blackstone Commentaries, any common law or Supreme Court cases.
One frequently cited article in the Harvard Law Review cites the fact that the "U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency."
Sen. McCain probably was natural born -- but only because he was born on a U.S. military base to a four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, and thus is analogous to the ambassador's child described in Calvin's Case. (Sorry, McCain haters -- oh wait! That's me!)
But a Senate resolution -- even one passed "unanimously"! -- is utterly irrelevant. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the court's job is to ascertain "objective law," not determine "some kind of social consensus," which I believe is the job of the judges on "American Idol." (On the other hand, if Congress has the power to define constitutional terms, how about a resolution declaring that The New York Times is not "speech"?)
Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a "natural born citizen." This is constitutional illiteracy. "Natural born" is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an "active judge" in legal terminology.
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: "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."
Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.
As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: "It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship."
The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born -- except the part about not being natural born.
Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)"
Unless we're all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a "natural born citizen."
Take it like a man, Ted -- and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.
COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER
pResident Wetshispants is a citizen and eligible. Cruz is a citizen and eligible. Case closed. Trump is foolish to bring this up, Cruz didn't try to cover anything up like obama did.
Cruz is our best chance against Trump right now... Do you really want Trump?
Do you really want Cruz? Not stumping for Trump, but Cruz is caustic as well. Too early to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
sent from somwhere
If he is in fact ineligible, it doesn't matter whether or not I or anyone else wants him.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
It is not a matter of how good a job he could do as POTUS. If you believe in defending the Constitution, ineligible means ineligible.
In a false dichotomy of the two, I would prefer Cruz. I think Cruz is a better leader, better politician, and consistently represents my values better than Trump. I think Cruz would represent America internationally far better than Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
I'm not at all conflicted about this because I believe that he is eligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
My wife was born in Jakarta. Her father is Texan, and her mother is Austrian, making her a citizen of both the US and the EU from birth; she has two legitimate passports. You can play the semantics game if you want about what "natural born" means, but the way it has been interpreted by the federal government since the First Congress means Cruz is eligible.
Not trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
Fact - Cruz is eligible.
Does not matter what anyone thinks, wishes, or opines.
Fact - Cruz is eligible.
Personally, I wish Cruz was eligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Cruz held a dual citizenship with Canada and the US up until May 14 2014.
Ensuring the elected official to the highest office in the US does not have any split allegiances is precisely why the "Natural Born Citizen" clause exists.
"Natural Born" and "Naturalized" are two different classes of US citizenship. They share all the same rights and privileges, EXCEPT for Presidential eligibility.
It is what it is, and that is a fact.
We may soon see what the court thinks:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...inst-ted-cruz/Quote:
Texas Attorney Files Eligibility Lawsuit Against Ted Cruz…
Again, I wish Cruz was eligible. I think he'd make a good President or Vice President. But, I'm not willing to go down the road the Dems did in 2008 and ignore the Constitution in order to get him elected.
Cruz' mother was an American citizen in Canada when Cruz was born so Cruz is an American citizen by birth.
Just another way of looking at this: At least the GOP is having this conversation before they nominate a candidate, rather than never having the conversation, hiding any possible evidence, and ridiculing anyone who dares to raise the question.
Some people are just too afraid to be proven wrong.
Yes, a "Naturalized" American citizen by birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
ETA: Cruz is also a Canadian citizen by birth.
From:
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship...naturalization
ETA: This has been suggested as the primary reason Obama insists he was born on US soil. If he was born in Kenya, he would have fallen under the above naturalization clause and been ineligible. Also why his school and passport records are no where to be found - possible dual citizenship in his past - so the theory goes.Quote:
You May Qualify for Naturalization if:
- You have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meet all other eligibility requirements, please visit our Path to Citizenship page for more information.
- You have been a permanent resident for 3 years or more and meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen, please visit our Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens page for more information.
- You have qualifying service in the U.S. armed forces and meet all other eligibility requirements. Visit the Military section of our website.
- Your child may qualify for naturalization if you are a U.S. citizen, the child was born outside the U.S., the child is currently residing outside the U.S., and all other eligibility requirements are met. Visit our Citizenship Through Parents page for more information.
Hmmmmmm skeptical, this is just another ploy by the establishment to derail Cruz' presidential bid.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
All this bickering about "natural born" etc is really depressing.
I cannot disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
And he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
He is eligible. There are 4 ways one is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States:Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
-Born to two US Citizen parents in the US.
-Born to one US Citizen parent in the US.
-Born to one or both US Citizen parent(s) regardless of location of birth (Cruz, Obama, McCain).
-Born to foreign citizen in the US (Anchor baby).
These are all the accepted definitions that have yet to be challenged in the SCOTUS. Obama is eligible regardless of if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his mother is a US Citizen and thus he is a Natural Born US Citizen. It would be the same as if your mother was a US Citizen (irrelevant if your father was or wasn't), went on vacation and gave birth to you in a foreign country. Make sense?
An anchor baby can run for POTUS? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I wish it were as simple as you have stated. However, it is not.
Please provide any legal sources used to back up your understanding?
Anyone know how he gets an official sign off that ends the speculation? To me, I see him as eligible and the only reason this is coming up is to vet him now as opposed to later.
Sounds like he needs to get ahead of this thing and get an official answer asap just to make this issue go away, but I am afraid the only way he can get a final answer is SCOTUS which isn't the most time efficient route.
Any other options?