Thread: U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Ted Cruz's 'birther' case

Searcher932 wrote:

such as how activist judges have ruled on Ted Cruz, and how you don't seem to care that they made rulings which the founders would not agree with.

Seems the founders did agree with it though:

Excerpt:

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law^3×3. SeeSmith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (188. and enactments of the First Congress.^4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (188.Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.^5×5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (189. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposeswhatsoever.”^6×6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (170; see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’sCommentaries,^7×7. See 1 William Blackstone,Commentaries *354–63. a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790^8×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). provided 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”^9×9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted). The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).Show MoreThe proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.^11×11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

Perhaps there are other people who are watching this thread and might want to express their views here, but decided against it because they figured you would just jump in afterwards and imply there's no point in any further discussion on the issue. I believe it's important for people to be able to express their views, even if you don't agree with them and would rather they not talk about it. Debate should be encouraged, not discouraged. I know I am new here, but I don't think I am off base on that.

Originally Posted by Searcher932

Perhaps there are other people who are watching this thread and might want to express their views here, but decided against it because they figured you would just jump in afterwards and imply there's no point in any further discussion on the issue. I believe it's important for people to be able to express their views, even if you don't agree with them and would rather they not talk about it. Debate should be encouraged, not discouraged. I know I am new here, but I don't think I am off base on that.

Welcome to ALIPAC Searcher932. Since you are fairly new here you can't know that we have had this discussion at length on here earlier this year. There are those on here that agree with you. However, I'm guessing they just don't won't to get into this discussion again since Cruz is no longer in the picture and we've covered this topic extensively. Just saying .......

Originally Posted by MW

Welcome to ALIPAC Searcher932. Since you are fairly new here you can't know that we have had this discussion at length on here . . .

Some of our research goes back to 2013.


2016 presidential election: Who is eligible to run for president?

Started by JohnDoe2, 08-13-2013



The curious case of ‘Calgary Cruz’ and the U.S. Constitution

Started by JohnDoe2, 05-11-2013


Canada-born Ted Cruz became a citizen of that country as well as U.S.

Started by JohnDoe2, 08-19-2013


MSNBC Chris Matthews Goes Birther On Ted Cruz

Started by JohnDoe2, 05-31-2013



Could Cruz Spark A Leftist ‘Birther’ Movement?

Started by JohnDoe2, 05-03-2013


Trump plays the birther card on Ted Cruz

Started by JohnDoe2, 08-11-2013

Originally Posted by Searcher932

Perhaps there are other people who are watching this thread and might want to express their views here, but decided against it because they figured you would just jump in afterwards and imply there's no point in any further discussion on the issue. I believe it's important for people to be able to express their views, even if you don't agree with them and would rather they not talk about it. Debate should be encouraged, not discouraged. I know I am new here, but I don't think I am off base on that.

That's true. We have many who believe that to be a natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution, the person would need to be:

1. born in the USA
2. born to 2 US citizen parents, natural born or naturalized.

We have a few, 2 or 3 that I know of, who believe any combination of foreign and domestic, so long as there is a US link makes them eligible, someone born on foreign soil to 2 US citizens (McCain), born in the US but to non-citizen parents (Rubio), born in the US to 1 US citizen (Obama), born on foreign soil to 1 US citizen (Cruz).

I'm sure it's a debate that will go on and on and on and those of US who know what Article II both says and means need to stand up and speak out, so I thank you for your posts and comments on this topic.

One of the things we need to get straightened out if Trump gets in is the corrupt notion that anyone who pukes out a baby on US soil has just minted a US citizen. US citizens birth US citizens, it takes two, no more, no less. Everyone else has to line up and apply for it.

Thank you for the welcomes, I appreciate it. I also appreciate seeing other members express their views, and not feeling discouraged from doing so.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

One of the things we need to get straightened out if Trump gets in is the corrupt notion that anyone who pukes out a baby on US soil has just minted a US citizen. US citizens birth US citizens, it takes two, no more, no less. Everyone else has to line up and apply for it.

I agree 100% and to be President or Vice President it takes 2 US citizens + Born in the USA.

Originally Posted by Judy

I agree 100% and to be President or Vice President it takes 2 US citizens + Born in the USA.

And the Naturalization Act of 1790, which is law, would disagree with your assessment on what defines a natural born citizen.

Originally Posted by MW

And the Naturalization Act of 1790, which is law, would disagree with your assessment on what defines a natural born citizen.

Naturalization law is ... law ... not nature. If you are "considered" a "natural born citizen" by naturalization law, that means you weren't one before the law. The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795 which correctly no longer "considered" citizens born overseas to be natural born citizens. So, in constitutional law, the 1790 Naturalization Act proves my case. When you become a citizen as a result of naturalization law, you are not a natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution, you are citizen by law.

A natural born citizen is a US citizen born by blood and soil. Hence, 2 US citizen parents at the time of birth and born on US soil. It's very simple, nothing complicated about it.