Yes, but after extensive online searching, it does appear a strong majority of the legal experts do say Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontereySherry
Printable View
Yes, but after extensive online searching, it does appear a strong majority of the legal experts do say Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontereySherry
YES. You can find legal "EXPERTS" who support any position you want to take on this issue and they are just their OPINIONS, and prove nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontereySherry
Actually it does prove something because they are the experts. However, like I said early, only the U.S. Supreme Court can resolve this issue. Will that happen? Probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDoe2
Great post at the start MW but I'm guessing you failed to read a few things on it. According to the First Congress which is linked as *earliest statute* we find a few things.
First off on Cruz
"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof...."
"And the children of such persons so naturalized, swelling withing the United States, being under age of twenty-one years at the time of naturalization, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the Unites States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Now considering things we can ignore the *free white person* part. Lets focus on the 3rd part first to deal with Cruz. It says who can be Natural Born Citizens yet born outside the US. The qualifier is in the word *parents* and no apostrophe. This means parents is plural which means BOTH parents must be citizens at time of birth. Cruz's father was NOT a US citizen at the time of his birth who only naturalized in 2005. Further it suggests the father's status is also the most important one in passing citizenship at all in the words of
"That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the United States".
This would mean that Cruz surely was NOT a natural born citizen but may have not even been a US Citizen in the first place as his mother never did the necassary paperwork for him to be a naturalized citizen.
Now lets talk on the first bits a bit more.
"who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years"
This states the rules for naturalization which can be applied to the *jurisdiction* part of the 14th Amendment. It states residing within the limits (meaning on US soil) AND under the jurisdiction of the United States. This means being under the jurisdiction of the United States does NOT just mean on US soil but more then that as the SCOTUS has said repeatedly every word, letter, and symbol must have meaning. The only remaining meaning of jurisdiction would be law abiding or better understood there legally. The 14th Amendment didn't even mention soil but simply referred to legal status / law abiding status. This means any person outside the scope of their legal status does NOT qualify to get citizenship for their children born in the US.
It also clearly shows there is a normal Citizen, a Naturalized Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen and as per the SCOTUS many times once again every word must have a meaning.
So is Cruz a natural born citizen? Nope. Is Rubio a NBC? Nope. Is Obama a Citizen even? Nope.
There should be NO more confusion on the issue. Cruz is NOT qualified. The problem is the liberal push trying to oust fathers having any meaning and as long as 1 parent is a citizen that child must be a natural born citizen. A liberal agenda but NOT the Constitutional truth.
Now you mentioned most legal scholars agree on this? Not so at all. They are heavily divided. Most straight forward non politically affiliated scholars say their is serious merit to the challenges, the Conservative scholars say clearly we have been tricked and they don't qualify. Its only the liberal ones which is all you really hear about saying its not an issue.
ReformUSA2012 wrote:
Yes, actually they do and no they're aren't heavily divided on the subject.Quote:
Now you mentioned most legal scholars agree on this? Not so at all. They are heavily divided. Most straight forward non politically affiliated scholars say their is serious merit to the challenges, the Conservative scholars say clearly we have been tricked and they don't qualify. Its only the liberal ones which is all you really hear about saying its not an issue.
I'm not going to go into all your comments because we've been through all of this repeatedly on this forum. However, I do think the following will respond to some of the things you're having an issue with.
Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility
- By D'Angelo Gore
- Posted on March 24, 2015
Q: Is Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, eligible to be the U.S. president?
A: Most likely. The legal consensus is that Cruz qualifies because he was born to a U.S. citizen living abroad, making him a U.S. citizen at birth.
FULL QUESTION
Is Ted Cruz eligible to run for president based on the fact he was born in Canada but his mother was American? Exactly what does the Constitution and our other laws say about this?
FULL ANSWER
Sen. Ted Cruz announced on March 23 that he will seek the Republican nomination to be president of the United States in 2016. But, as some readers were quick to point out, Cruz wasn’t born in the U.S. His birth certificate shows he was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970.
The U.S. Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born Citizen.”
Article II, Section 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.
That should disqualify him from being president, right? Not so fast.
Cruz, who came to the U.S. at age 4, is a citizen by birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. For that reason, legal scholars argue that he can likely be president.
In 2013, Sarah Helene Duggin, a Catholic University law professor, wrote: “There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reached a similar conclusion in 2011.
CRS, Nov. 14, 2011: The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
And this month, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, two former U.S. solicitors general, writing for the Harvard Law Review, said that Cruz qualifies as a “natural born citizen.”
Katyal and Clement, March 11: All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
Case closed? Cruz thinks so, as he told Fox News host Sean Hannity on March 23:
Cruz, March 23: The facts are clear. I was born in Calgary. My parents — as a legal matter, my mother is an American citizen by birth. And it’s been federal law for over two centuries that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen.
Indeed, the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed three years after the U.S. Constitution was written, said that “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.”
But as the CRS pointed out in its report, the 1790 law was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which changed the language from “natural born citizens” to just “citizens.”
So there is still some lingering uncertainty about Cruz’s eligibility. That’s because the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” which the Constitution doesn’t define.
This is not the first time that a Republican presidential candidate faced such questions. As we have written before, John McCain, who was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone, and Barry Goldwater, who was the party’s nominee in 1964, was born to U.S. citizens in Arizona before it was a state. George Romney, who was born to U.S. citizens in Mexico, ran for president in 1968, but did not win the nomination.
Even Duggin, who wrote in her 2013 article that “a scholarly consensus is emerging … that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II,” acknowledges that the issue may not be settled.
“In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling — or a constitutional amendment — the parameters of the clause remain uncertain,” she wrote.
— D’Angelo Gore
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/ted...l-eligibility/
To example: A few European countries have been offering "dual citizenship" to those that are 2nd generation Americans. In Ireland, the 1st generation born in America (to Irish born parents) are considered "Irish Citizens" automatically if they wish to enact that.
The 2nd generation American is eligible to file for "dual citizenship" - the fee is $1300, the highest price compared to other countries. Documentation of lineage must be provided & there are things requiring participation, paperwork (recall something @ taxes, voting). The offer stops after the 2nd generation unless you registered for your children before a certain time period. A dual Irish citizenship allows one to live in any EU country - not very enticing now though.
Every country has its own process for obtaining citizenship. Ireland, Italy and Greece are among the most lenient in terms of letting an individual claim citizenship not just from a parent but from a grandparent or possibly a great-grandparent.
'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going AwayQuote:
Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012
Without poking a stick in a hornet's nest, that is not my intent, and I admit that I am not a fan of Obama by any means... ..... What was the dust up over Obama since his mother is without a doubt an American citizen? Regardless of what nationality his father is or where he was born? She could have had him in a rowboat in the middle of Antarctica and he would still be a natural born US citizen?
Largest collection of birther articles in the world right here at ALIPAC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newmexican
Barack Obama's citizenship questioned
Started by MinutemanCDC_SC, 11-05-2008 09:33 AM 123...144http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...e/misc/tag.png http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...subscribed.png
- Replies: 5,722
- Views: 600,083
Thank you for reminding me of the excellent research material that we have here at ALIPAC JD2. The sheer volume of the material suggests that it is going to need a legal decision..JMOQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnDoe2