WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
"Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
residents of Canada. We need to protect the integrity of the office of
the presidency. Only natural-born USA citizens are eligible to be
President."
LINK: http://wh.gov/iwRd2
Bjorn Rebney Junior:
> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
> residents of Canada...
Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
Idiot!
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:37 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/8/2016 11:15 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/8/2016 11:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>>
>>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>>
>>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>>> residents of Canada...
>>>
>>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>>
>>> Idiot!
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
>> had a C-section you can't be President.
>
>
>I think that distinction was the problem with the current president. He
>was hatched.
That would explain why he acts like a chicken in any confrontational
situation.
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:13:47 -0500, Bjorn Rebney Junior
<[email protected]> wrote:
>WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>
>"Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>residents of Canada. We need to protect the integrity of the office of
>the presidency. Only natural-born USA citizens are eligible to be
>President."
>
>LINK: http://wh.gov/iwRd2
You're an idiot (but I'm sure you've been told that before).
On 1/8/2016 11:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>
>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>
>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>> residents of Canada...
>
> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>
> Idiot!
>
Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
had a C-section you can't be President.
On 20/01/2016 8:25 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/20/2016 9:12 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> The only relevant thing is what the actual
>>>>> law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
>>>>> citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
>>>>> "natural-born".
>>>>
>>>> The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
>>>> as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
>>>> define what a "natural born" citizen is.
>>>>
>>> http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born
>>> -citizen/
>>
>> Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
>> naturalization act of 1790, which has long since been
>> superceded. As far as I know, there is no current law
>> which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
>> was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
>> happening).
>>
>> The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
>> 8 USC 1401.
>>
>> Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
>> citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
>> under current law.
>>
>> (just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
>> not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
>> no longer applies).
>>
>> John
>>
>
> I think to sum all of this, is he or isn't he speculation, you can
> probably rest assured that if he was not, the opposing party would have
> come up with undeniable defined and clear proof that he was not.
> But as our leaders and law makers have always done and will continue to
> do they leave the waters just muddy enough so that they can interpret
> their laws and rules the way they choose.
>
>
The birthers are strangely quiet at the moment! Their chickens have come
home to roost!
Graham
--
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid
people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
-John Stuart Mill
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:53:02 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:13:47 -0500, Bjorn Rebney Junior
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>
>>"Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>residents of Canada. We need to protect the integrity of the office of
>>the presidency. Only natural-born USA citizens are eligible to be
>>President."
>>
>>LINK: http://wh.gov/iwRd2
>
>You're an idiot (but I'm sure you've been told that before).
And, and uninformed idiot. Cruz qualifies as a citizen. Being a
legal resident of Canada did not remove his mother's citizenship.
Hopefully, Cruz is unelectable, but not for the reason this idiot
thinks.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 00:01:01 -0500, Tony Cooper
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:53:02 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:13:47 -0500, Bjorn Rebney Junior
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>>
>>>"Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>>a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>>residents of Canada. We need to protect the integrity of the office of
>>>the presidency. Only natural-born USA citizens are eligible to be
>>>President."
>>>
>>>LINK: http://wh.gov/iwRd2
>>
>>You're an idiot (but I'm sure you've been told that before).
>
>And, and uninformed idiot. Cruz qualifies as a citizen. Being a
>legal resident of Canada did not remove his mother's citizenship.
Exactly.
>Hopefully, Cruz is unelectable, but not for the reason this idiot
>thinks.
We disagree but that's the way it is.
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 00:15:27 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/8/2016 11:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>
>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>
>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>> residents of Canada...
>>
>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>
>> Idiot!
>>
>
>Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
>had a C-section you can't be President.
LMAO!
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:07:10 -0600, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:37 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>>On 1/8/2016 11:15 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2016 11:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>>>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>>>
>>>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>>>
>>>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>>>> residents of Canada...
>>>>
>>>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>>>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
>>> had a C-section you can't be President.
>>
>>
>>I think that distinction was the problem with the current president. He
>>was hatched.
>
>That would explain why he acts like a chicken in any confrontational
>situation.
Why? Because he is?
On 1/8/2016 11:15 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/8/2016 11:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>
>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>
>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>> residents of Canada...
>>
>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>
>> Idiot!
>>
>
> Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
> had a C-section you can't be President.
I think that distinction was the problem with the current president. He
was hatched.
Bjorn Rebney Junior <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the
USA
>
> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but
in
> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
> residents of Canada. We need to protect the integrity of the office of
> the presidency. Only natural-born USA citizens are eligible to be
> President."
>
> LINK: http://wh.gov/iwRd2
Pure horsepucky.
As the American political right begins to set its sights on the 2016
presidential election, a bit of a kerfuffle has persisted over the
eligibility of Ted Cruz, should he decide to seek the Republican
nomination. Most confusing for some may be the persistent voices on the
right who insist Cruz is ineligible. While I find it incredibly bizarre
that people who are staunchly on the right would be spending so much
energy trying to disqualify one of strongest, most conservative political
leaders our side can field, I can assure you that however well-
intentioned their views may be, they are mistaken in their understanding
of Cruzs eligibility.
Let us see if we can walk through this, one piece at a time.
First, lets take a quick look at the law itself. The qualifications for
serving as president are laid out in the Constitution, which among other
things 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
So, natural born citizencheck. This is the part for which it is claimed
Cruz doesnt qualify, but what exactly is a natural born citizen?
Despite the great amount of debate, there truly is one and only one
legally controlling authority, and that is U.S. Code law and, of course,
its interpretation.
This matter is, or ought to be, largely outside debate. The Constitution
defined our government, and the boundaries and constraints under which it
would operate. However, the Founders understood that a body of code law
would have to be created within the Constitutions framework, and they
gave the power to create laws to Congress. The Constitution is a short,
simple document, and rightly so. It is up to Congress to create laws that
faithfully represent the intent of the Constitution.
In other words, the Framers didnt spell out a definition for natural
born citizen because it was deliberately left to Congress to determine.
Indeed, a faithful interpretation of the Constitutiona document revered
by us conservativesmust include recognition that this power was granted
to Congress. The legal definition of a natural born citizen, a.k.a. a
citizen at birth, can be found in section 1401, Subchapter III of the
U.S. Code.
Now, let us look at how this applies to Ted Cruz, and see if we cant put
this question to bed.
Senator Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, which of course is in Canada.
The senators father, Rafael Cruz, is from Cuba, and has quite an
interesting story himself, but was not a citizen at the time of his sons
birth. His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, however, was a citizen,
having been born and raised in Delaware. Eleanor attended Rice university
in Texas, where she also worked for Shell Oil Company as a programmer
after graduating.
This brings us to subsection (d) of section 1401 of the previously
mentioned U.S. Code, which in defining those who are legally citizens at
birth, reads:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who
has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of
such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of
the United States; (emphasis mine)
This is the aspects of the U.S. code which pertains to Senator Cruz.
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions
Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States
His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware.
who has been physically present in the United States or one of its
outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the
birth of such person
His mother was born, raised, and lived in the United States. She was thus
physically present in the United States for far more that the required
continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person.
and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United
States
His father was a U.S. national, but not a citizen. He was married to
Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, a U.S. citizen, thus making him a national
according to the law.
Ted Cruz fits all the requirements established in Section 1401,
Subchapter III of U.S. Code for being a citizen.
There are a number of important things to understand here.
First, and most essentialthe only controlling authority on this question
is U.S. law. Skeptics have put forth the belief that 18th century common
law or quotes from the Founders have authority over this question. They
do not. While we revere both the wisdom of our predecessors (handed down
through human institutions such as tradition and common law) and the
brilliance and intent of our Founders, neither of these have any legal
authority over the legal definition of natural born citizen. That
authority is found in the law alone.
And indeed, it bears repeatingthe Founders themselves vested the
authority to create these laws, and to create legal definitions of
terminology, with Congress. If we are to respect the Framers of the
Constitution, that is part of what we must respect. If we disagree with
the current legal definition of the term, the solution is not to pretend
that a different controlling authority exists, the solution is to
challenge the law in court or to petition our elected representatives to
change the law.
Second, there is no distinction between the terms natural born citizen
and citizen at birth. Legally speaking, both terms mean exactly the
same thing. In fact, in the United States, there are only two legally
recognized classifications of citizen: Citizen at Birth and Naturalized
Citizen. This actually gives us a very easy way to gauge if someone is
qualified to serve as President: If they went through a naturalization
ceremony to obtain citizenship, they are not so qualified. If, on the
other hand, they are a citizen, and never had to be naturalized, as is
the case with Senator Cruz, they are eligible. From a legal perspective,
it really is that simple.
It can be fascinating looking into the etymology of the phrase natural
born citizen, but the historical meanings of a particular phrase are not
necessarily the same as, and should not be confused with, its legally
defined meaning. The only meaning that carries any legal weight is the
one defined in the U.S. Code.
I recognize and respect that passions run high on this subject. But I
assure you, you can take this analysis to the bank. And if you are a Ted
Cruz fan, then take hearthe really is eligible to run for, and serve as,
president!
UPDATE
Any time I write an article involving presidential eligibility and the
Natural Born clause of Article II, a number of standard objections seem
to pop up. The claims take a variety of forms, but they usually involve
the assertion that when it comes to interpreting and clarifying this
particular clause in the Constitution, some other source of authority has
primacy over the U.S. Code. There there tends to be a recurring set of
objections. I will try to deal with the most common of them here.
1. The Founders said Natural Born Citizen, and the U.S. Code says
Citizen at Birth, which mean two completely different things. Therefore
the U.S. Code is trumped by the Constitution
Based on United States law, the terms Natural Born Citizen and Citizen
at Birth are synonymous with each other. Those who claim otherwise need
to come up with some authoritative case law clearly distinguishing
between the two terms. (Note: The assertion that this is done in Supreme
Court cases is dealt with below.) The idea that NBC and CaB are
materially different from each other is similar to claiming the words
dog and domestic canine mean different things. They both refer to the
same thing: citizenship other than that which comes from naturalization.
In a paper written by the Congressional Research Service, the two terms
are explained as well as I have ever seen:
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.
Think of it this way: Both terms are meant to distinguish a citizen born
subject to the laws, privileges, and responsibilities of a particular
state or government from a person who must acquire citizenship through an
affirmative act of his own. While there are no writings by the Founders
providing a single legal definition of natural born citizen, there are
several making clear their intent was to ensure against some individual
with loyalties to another king or country from scheming or buying his way
into the presidency. Even if someone manages to present evidence of some
minutiae distinguishing the separate meanings of NBC and CaB, I have yet
to hear anyone explain how it that makes a critical difference in this
clearly expressed intent. Which brings us to . . .
2. Title 8 of the U.S. Code carries no weightthe only thing that is
important is the intent of the founders, and what they thought Natural
Born Citizen means.
This is what I refer to as the Common Law argument; essentially, it
says that the common-law meaning of the term natural born citizen is the
only thing that really matters. After all, it is well established that
much of the Constitution was undergirded by the Founders understanding
of English Common law. Unfortunately, the term Natural Born Citizen does
not have a fixed, singular meaning, even in the context of common law,
but fortunately we do have William Blackstone, who is accepted as a
principle authority on the topic.
Blackstone dealt with subjects rather than citizens, as Americans began
calling themselves after gaining independence, and Blackstone defined
Natural-born Subjects as those born within the dominions of the crown of
England. Blackstone further held that children of the kings
ambassadors born abroad are always held to be natural subjects. In other
words, though such children were born outside English soil, they still
retained all the status attached to any other child born within England.
Finally, Blackstone also notes that ..more modern statutes these
restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out
of the kings ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now
natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes. If this
sounds familiar, that is because the verbiage of sub-section (d) of
section 1401 cited above is based on this same, common-law principle.
Some assert that because this common law principle, as stated by
Blackstone and some of the Founders, refers to fathers, that Ted Cruz
cannot be considered a citizen because it was his mother, not his father,
who was the U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. But that is where the
U.S. code law enters in. Our laws are informed by common law, but they go
on to clarify it for purposes of more precise adjudication of the law.
That is why sub-section (d) of section 1401 clarifies the common law
version that refers to fathers with a legal version that refers to
parents.
3. Case law I have seen a number of court cases raised as
examples which somehow prove some distinct meaning for natural born
citizen. Unfortunately, I fear that many (if not most) of the people who
cite these cases have not taken the time to actually read them. Here are
a few I often see cited, along with a short synopsis of what they really
are about:
Minor v. Happersett This was a suffrage era case that dealt with
Missouris state law prohibiting womens voting rights. It obliquely
references the 14th Amendment, but says absolutely nothing that could be
even remotely construed as a definition of natural born citizen or
how it might be distinct from citizen at birth. The principle finding
in this case is that citizenship does not confer a right to vote.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark This case affirms the principle of Jus
Soli, or citizenship at birth, established in the 14thAmendment. Most
importantly, it established the interpretation of the phrase ..subject
to the jurisdiction thereof as used in that amendment, which principle
has remained unchallenged since. The case does not however address or
deal with the meaning or definition of natural born citizen beyond this
narrow focus, nor does it distinguish that term from citizen at birth.
The Venus This oddly-named case (Venus was the name of a merchant ship
seized by a Privateer, on behalf of the U.S. Government during the War of
1812) from 1814 is actually a property dispute dealing with the
disposition of war prizes seized by the United States. The subject of
citizenship is tangential at best, and has to do with the governments
arguments over disposition of the property claimed by the plaintiffs.
The case does not address citizenship, either natural-born or
naturalized, in any way useful to the debate over the meaning of natural
born citizen, or any distinction between that and citizen at birth. Its
principle significance was in refining the laws of property seizure
during war.
Shanks v. DuPont This case is actually yet another property dispute,
and does not deal in any material way with questions about natural born
citizenship. In a nutshell, two sisters inherited property in South
Carolina upon the death of their father. Both daughters were legally
considered citizens by birth, but one married a British officer during
the War for Independence and left with him to live out the remainder of
her life in England. The dispute was between the children of these two
sisters, and was based on the claim that since the British had invaded
and occupied parts of South Carolina for a time, including the property
in question, this somehow caused the sister who left for England to
forfeit her citizenship. The court disagreed.
Perkins v. Elg This case involved a young girl, born on U.S. soil to
Swedish parents (father was naturalized) who returned with her to Sweden
a short time after her birth, where they reclaimed their citizenship of
that country. The girl returned to the U.S. after her 21st birthday, and
her citizenship claim was upheld by the SCOTUS. This case again deals
with the principle of Jus Soli, and once again does not address any
distinction between natural born citizen and citizen at birth, nor does
address any of the claims or controversies about presidential
qualifications.
You are certainly welcome to read them for yourselves, but in fact none
of these commonly cited cases has any bearing, or even says anything
relevant about Article II of the Constitution, nor do they contradict
Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code.
4. but according to Section 1401, Cruzs mother had to be a
government official, or a member of the armed forces in order for him to
be a citizen.
This objection is based on subsection (g) of the referenced code, and is
based on a misreading of that subsection. What the code is actually
saying is, for children born outside the U.S. and its territories, where
one parent is a citizen and the other is an alien, (as opposed to a U.S.
National, as stated in subsection (d) of the same code) the citizen
parent must have been present in the U.S. (or its territories) for no
less than five years, and any military service or time spent overseas as
an employee of the U.S. counts toward that five year requirement. This
subsection does not affect Senator Cruz, because his father was still a
U.S. National, even though he was not a citizen. And even if it did
apply, since his mother had already spent her whole life living within
the United States before moving to Calgary, she more than met the
requirement, even without having to get credit for time in U.S. service.
Quite often, objections I encounter are based on a misreading of legal
language. In other words, the objector is citing code or case law, but
(s)he is misinterpreting the meaning of the words. I compliment anyone
who is attempting to read the law itself, as the law is the authoritative
source for these matters. However, I would ask most earnestlyread it
slowly and carefully. Legal language often involves long sentences with
multiple clauses. It helps to try to look for the primary subject of each
sentence, and the main verb, to get the meaning. Often, it helps to
temporarily ignore all the non-restrictive clauses in between.
Im not a lawyer, and you dont need to be one in order to understand
legal language (though it probably helps). We, the People, can do this.
But we have to look to the law as the authoritative source. I guarantee
that if this is ever adjudicated in Congress or the courts, that is what
they will do.
Originally published by the Western Free Press & Greg Conterio on August
27, 2013.
Press Updates
Mar 3, 2015: Why Ted Cruz is constitutionally qualified to be president
I read the comments sections on my articles. One of the comments I
see consistently is I like Ted Cruz, but I am worried he is not
constitutionally qualified to be president.
So I decided to look into the issue.
After doing some research, heres what I discovered:
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. He had (past tense) Canadian
citizenship, which he was entitled to automatically, having been born in
Canada, and which he has since renounced. He was also born with American
citizenship. His mother was an American; his father was not.
The Constitution says any candidate for president must be 35 years of
age, a resident within the United States for 14 years and a natural born
citizen.
The question then is, what is a natural born citizen? I dont think
there is any doubt that being born abroad doesnt prevent Cruz from being
a natural born citizen. If so, any children born to American parents
while abroad wouldnt be Americans. That makes no sense. And to eliminate
doubt, Congress expressly passed a law saying children of Americans born
outside America were in fact natural born Americans.
The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become nationals
and citizens of the United States at birth. In addition to those who are
born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were
both citizens or, interestingly, found in the United States without
parents and no proof of birth elsewhere citizenship goes to babies born
to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here. That
single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the
law in effect between 1952 and 1986 Cruz was born in 1970 someone
must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least
10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a
natural-born citizen. Cruzs mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in
Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to
little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s.
So according to the Nationality Act of 1940, Ted Cruz, who was born
outside America to one American parent, is clearly a natural born
American, and he can clearly run for and hold the office of the
presidency. I think this should be the end of this discussion. (Keep
reading
)
Source: http://bit.ly/1xmjf9Z
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS."
ISIS: "We've contained Obama."
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who arent and to impose their will on those who
didnt ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"No doubt Hillary would like to call [Paula] Jones a liar, but Bill paid
Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment suit. Can you imagine the
fun Donald Trump, for one, would have with that? Plus, it was Bill
Clinton, not Paula Jones, who was found by the presiding federal judge to
have committed perjury."--John Hinderaker
[email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, graham <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 08/01/2016 9:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>>
>>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>>
>>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>>> residents of Canada...
>>>
>>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>>
>>> Idiot!
>>>
>>Why didn't the Repuglicans apply the same logic to Obama?
>>
>
> They sure as hell tried. In fact, I half suspect that this petition is
> just an "in your face" parody of that attempt.
>
> (Although my understanding is that Cruz is on record as having said
> that if *either* parent is a non-citizen, then you're not eligible to
> be president. I expect he didn't realize that he'd be running for office
> himself someday, and now wishes he hadn't said that.)
Whether he actually said that or not isn't relevant to the question of his eligibility for office.
The only relevant thing is what the actual law is: children born abroad, with at least one
parent a U.S. citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e. "natural-born".
>
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The only relevant thing is what the actual
> law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S. citizen,
> are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e. "natural-born".
The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
define what a "natural born" citizen is.
John
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The only relevant thing is what the actual
>> law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S. citizen,
>> are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e. "natural-born".
>
> The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
> as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
> define what a "natural born" citizen is.
>
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The only relevant thing is what the actual
>>> law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
>>> citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
>>> "natural-born".
>>
>> The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
>> as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
>> define what a "natural born" citizen is.
>>
> http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born
> -citizen/
Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
naturalization act of 1790, which has long since been
superceded. As far as I know, there is no current law
which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
happening).
The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
8 USC 1401.
Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
under current law.
(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).
John
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:bL-dnVxD4LJjOwLLnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
> But as our leaders and law makers have always done and will continue to
> do they leave the waters just muddy enough so that they can interpret
> their laws and rules the way they choose.
Considering the number of times Congress had the opportunity
to clarify things, and chose not to, I think you have that
one 100% right :-)
John
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The only relevant thing is what the actual
>>>> law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
>>>> citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
>>>> "natural-born".
>>>
>>> The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
>>> as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
>>> define what a "natural born" citizen is.
>>>
>> http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born
>> -citizen/
>
> Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
> naturalization act of 1790,
That is incorrect. The article also referenced the British statutes which form the basis of
American common law in this respect, and (although without citing or quoting it) the later
Congressional act(s) which superseded it.
> which has long since been
> superceded.
Yes, by a law with an even more expansive definition of birthright citizenship.
*superseded
> As far as I know, there is no current law
> which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
> was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
> happening).
>
> The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
> 8 USC 1401.
>
> Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
> citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
> under current law.
>
> (just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
> not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
> no longer applies).
The article explicitly states the contrary; did you actually read it?
"Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz
would have been a natural born Citizen even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. "
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:bL-dnVxD4LJjOwLLnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
> I think to sum all of this, is he or isn't he speculation, you can
> probably rest assured that if he was not, the opposing party would have
> come up with undeniable defined and clear proof that he was not.
I'm not so sure about that, Leon. The suggestion was made by some after the 2008 election
that John McCain was the rightful winner because Barack Obama was [supposedly] ineligible
on exactly those same grounds. If I were a candidate, and had irrefutable proof that my
opponent was ineligible to the office, I might think about waiting until after the election before
saying anything about it: if I win, I keep my mouth shut; if I lose, I sue.
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Yes, by a law with an even more expansive definition of birthright
> citizenship.
I see your problem here. You are assuming birthright
citizenship is the same as natural born citizen. There
is nothing in the law that says that (altho it's not an
unreasonable assumption). There is considerable reason
to think the founding fathers did not consider them to
be the same thing.
>> (just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
>> not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
>> no longer applies).
>
> The article explicitly states the contrary; did you actually read it?
>
> "Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United
> States, Senator Cruz would have been a natural born Citizen even
> under the Naturalization Act of 1790. "
It was my understanding that Cruz's father did not reside
in the US until after Cruz's birth. Apparently I'm mistaken
in that (it appears, having looked up the info on Cruz's
father, that he's a religious loon of the first order. Not
something particularly desirable in the family of a
presidential candidate, unfortunately).
John
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Yes, by a law with an even more expansive definition of birthright
>> citizenship.
>
> I see your problem here. You are assuming birthright
> citizenship is the same as natural born citizen. There
> is nothing in the law that says that (altho it's not an
> unreasonable assumption). There is considerable reason
> to think the founding fathers did not consider them to
> be the same thing.
Quite the contrary, actually -- leading me to ask, again, if you actually read that Harvard Law
Review article, which discusses _at_length_ the considerations that informed the founding
fathers.
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Quite the contrary, actually -- leading me to ask, again, if you
> actually read that Harvard Law Review article, which discusses
> _at_length_ the considerations that informed the founding fathers.
Well, I have some free time, so let's go thru this:
1 - The Harvard Law Review is a very prestigious journal. It
is not, however, law. The authors are highly respected, but
they are not writing law, they are writing their opinions.
2 - They say "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". Note that they do not cite a law giving that
definition, they say the Constitution is "interpreted" to
have that meaning.
3 - they then argue that "British common law" defines the
term (and then confuse the issue by refering to statutes of
the 1700s). Common law refers to the practice of courts being
bound by prior decisions, not to laws enacted by a legislature;
in this case it means that, when a US law or precendent does
not exist, courts are bound by British precedent. The British
statues (and common law precendent) are largely concerned with
primogeniture and inheritance, and are of dubious relevance
to the question here - dubious enough that a court would have
to pass judgement.
4 - then then declare the Naturalization Act of 1790 is a
clear indication of the Framer's intent, because it does
define "natural born citizen". However, the Act of 1795
removed that, which might be equally well be interpreted as
the Framers realizing that it was a mistake, and intentionally
deleting it (alternatively, it may have been removed by
accident - again, something a court would have to rule on).
5 - then they suggest that the intent of the Framers is clear
from their other writings. This seems to be a stretch, if
anything is clear it is that the Framers were concerned about
foreign influence in government (as in the quote from John
Jay in the article).
6 - finally they conclude by tacitly assuming that their point
is proven, and therefor all candidates in question are to be
considered "natural born".
It is not a badly written article. It is not definitive, and
all it's points could be argued in a court of law. And, it
does not change the fact that there is no law which defines
"natural born citizen", because if there was the article would
never have been written in the first place.
John
graham <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Every right winger tying their nuts in knots to show that Cruz is
> eligible when they did their damnedest to show that Obama was not!
> The hypocrisy is unbelievable!
No hypocrisy at all on my part -- if you take the trouble to search for the few posts that I made
on that subject (here and/or in alt.home.repair) you'll discover that I consistently supported the
view that Obama was also a natural-born citizen. Indeed, there's no ambiguity at all in
Obama's case: he was born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mother.
On 1/20/2016 9:12 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The only relevant thing is what the actual
>>>> law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
>>>> citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
>>>> "natural-born".
>>>
>>> The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
>>> as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
>>> define what a "natural born" citizen is.
>>>
>> http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born
>> -citizen/
>
> Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
> naturalization act of 1790, which has long since been
> superceded. As far as I know, there is no current law
> which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
> was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
> happening).
>
> The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
> 8 USC 1401.
>
> Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
> citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
> under current law.
>
> (just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
> not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
> no longer applies).
>
> John
>
I think to sum all of this, is he or isn't he speculation, you can
probably rest assured that if he was not, the opposing party would have
come up with undeniable defined and clear proof that he was not.
But as our leaders and law makers have always done and will continue to
do they leave the waters just muddy enough so that they can interpret
their laws and rules the way they choose.
On 08/01/2016 9:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>
>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>
>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>> residents of Canada...
>
> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>
> Idiot!
>
Why didn't the Repuglicans apply the same logic to Obama?
On 1/9/2016 12:07 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:37 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2016 11:15 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2016 11:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>>>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>>>
>>>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>>>
>>>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>>>> residents of Canada...
>>>>
>>>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>>>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
>>> had a C-section you can't be President.
>>
>>
>> I think that distinction was the problem with the current president. He
>> was hatched.
>
> That would explain why he acts like a chicken in any confrontational
> situation.
>
When you have the facts... ;~) a lot of things fall into place.
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:30:52 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, graham <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 08/01/2016 9:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>>>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>>>
>>>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>>>
>>>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>>>> residents of Canada...
>>>>
>>>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>>>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot!
>>>>
>>>Why didn't the Repuglicans apply the same logic to Obama?
>>>
>>
>> They sure as hell tried. In fact, I half suspect that this petition is
>> just an "in your face" parody of that attempt.
>>
>> (Although my understanding is that Cruz is on record as having said
>> that if *either* parent is a non-citizen, then you're not eligible to
>> be president. I expect he didn't realize that he'd be running for office
>> himself someday, and now wishes he hadn't said that.)
>
>Whether he actually said that or not isn't relevant to the question of his eligibility for office.
>The only relevant thing is what the actual law is: children born abroad, with at least one
>parent a U.S. citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e. "natural-born".
>>
It's really not all that clear. From what I've read recently,
historically a person would be considered "naturalized at birth"
(*NOT* natural born) if their father was a citizen, unless their
father was an ambassador (or perhaps they were born on a military
base - not clear). The difference being that they would be naturalized
under a law (or court ruling) not by the Constitution.
Of course, the sexism thing wouldn't fly today and the whole thing is
really murky. Realistically, if either parent was a citizen, the
offspring will be considered a natural-born citizen. It all gets too
ugly otherwise.
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:18:23 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
>>>> had a C-section you can't be President.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that distinction was the problem with the current president.
>>> He was hatched.
>>
>> That would explain why he acts like a chicken in any confrontational
>> situation.
>>
>>
> When you have the facts... ;~) a lot of things fall into place.
Beware of getting what you wish for. Trump as Pres reminds me of
Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here" :-).
--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
In article <[email protected]>, graham <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/01/2016 9:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>
>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>
>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>> residents of Canada...
>>
>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>
>> Idiot!
>>
>Why didn't the Repuglicans apply the same logic to Obama?
>
They sure as hell tried. In fact, I half suspect that this petition is
just an "in your face" parody of that attempt.
(Although my understanding is that Cruz is on record as having said
that if *either* parent is a non-citizen, then you're not eligible to
be president. I expect he didn't realize that he'd be running for office
himself someday, and now wishes he hadn't said that.)
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:33:35 +0000, John McCoy wrote:
> It was my understanding that Cruz's father did not reside in the US
> until after Cruz's birth. Apparently I'm mistaken in that (it appears,
> having looked up the info on Cruz's father, that he's a religious loon
> of the first order. Not something particularly desirable in the family
> of a presidential candidate, unfortunately).
Boy, is he - news to me. He makes his son look like a liberal :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down!
graham wrote:
> Every right winger tying their nuts in knots to show that Cruz is
> eligible when they did their damnedest to show that Obama was not!
> The hypocrisy is unbelievable!
>
>
I would just say "Fuck You" - not based on my political beliefs, rather
based on the inappropriate nature of your comment in this group - or the
way you shove it down the throats of people that you think disagree with
you... but, I'm a much nicer person now, than I used to be. So...
instead, I'll just say Fuck You.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 09/01/2016 12:55 PM, graham wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 9:49 PM, Davoud wrote:
>> Bjorn Rebney Junior:
>>
>>> WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>>
>>> "Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>>> a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>>> residents of Canada...
>>
>> Idiot. A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen.
>> Foreign residency, military status, and the like do not matter.
>>
>> Idiot!
>>
> Why didn't the Repuglicans apply the same logic to Obama?
>
I should, of course used the word "birthers".
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:13:47 -0500, Bjorn Rebney Junior
<[email protected]> wrote:
>WHITE HOUSE PETITION - Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>
>"Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not on a USA military base, but in
>a Canadian civilian hospital while both of his parents were legal
>residents of Canada. We need to protect the integrity of the office of
>the presidency. Only natural-born USA citizens are eligible to be
>President."
>
>LINK: http://wh.gov/iwRd2
There are many reasons to oppose Cruz. This isn't one of them.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
On 09/01/2016 5:40 PM, Trenbidia wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:18:23 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>>>>> Yeah, but did you read the part about "natural born"? If your mother
>>>>> had a C-section you can't be President.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that distinction was the problem with the current president.
>>>> He was hatched.
>>>
>>> That would explain why he acts like a chicken in any confrontational
>>> situation.
>>>
>>>
>> When you have the facts... ;~) a lot of things fall into place.
>
> Beware of getting what you wish for. Trump as Pres reminds me of
> Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here" :-).
>
>
>
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag
and carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis.
On 22/01/2016 1:57 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Quite the contrary, actually -- leading me to ask, again, if you
>> actually read that Harvard Law Review article, which discusses
>> _at_length_ the considerations that informed the founding fathers.
>
> Well, I have some free time, so let's go thru this:
>
> 1 - The Harvard Law Review is a very prestigious journal. It
> is not, however, law. The authors are highly respected, but
> they are not writing law, they are writing their opinions.
>
> 2 - They say "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". Note that they do not cite a law giving that
> definition, they say the Constitution is "interpreted" to
> have that meaning.
>
> 3 - they then argue that "British common law" defines the
> term (and then confuse the issue by refering to statutes of
> the 1700s). Common law refers to the practice of courts being
> bound by prior decisions, not to laws enacted by a legislature;
> in this case it means that, when a US law or precendent does
> not exist, courts are bound by British precedent. The British
> statues (and common law precendent) are largely concerned with
> primogeniture and inheritance, and are of dubious relevance
> to the question here - dubious enough that a court would have
> to pass judgement.
>
> 4 - then then declare the Naturalization Act of 1790 is a
> clear indication of the Framer's intent, because it does
> define "natural born citizen". However, the Act of 1795
> removed that, which might be equally well be interpreted as
> the Framers realizing that it was a mistake, and intentionally
> deleting it (alternatively, it may have been removed by
> accident - again, something a court would have to rule on).
>
> 5 - then they suggest that the intent of the Framers is clear
> from their other writings. This seems to be a stretch, if
> anything is clear it is that the Framers were concerned about
> foreign influence in government (as in the quote from John
> Jay in the article).
>
> 6 - finally they conclude by tacitly assuming that their point
> is proven, and therefor all candidates in question are to be
> considered "natural born".
>
> It is not a badly written article. It is not definitive, and
> all it's points could be argued in a court of law. And, it
> does not change the fact that there is no law which defines
> "natural born citizen", because if there was the article would
> never have been written in the first place.
>
> John
>
Every right winger tying their nuts in knots to show that Cruz is
eligible when they did their damnedest to show that Obama was not!
The hypocrisy is unbelievable!
--
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid
people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
-John Stuart Mill