Loki Loc: Georgia

This is partially in response to a post claiming Ted Cruz is ineligible for the presidency because he doesn't qualify as a "Natural Born Citizen." The Constitution requires this, but does not define it. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has done so on four occasions:
The Venus 12 US Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v Dupont US 3 Pet 242 242 (1830)
Minor v Happersett 88 US 162 (1875)
US v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 (1898)
As far as I know, these are the only Supreme Court Decisions containing a definition of "Natural Born Citizen." The definition in every one of these cases is derived from a work of the mid 18th Century, "The Law of Nations," by Emmerich de Vattel, a German/Swiss philosopher. Each Supreme Court case cites this book's definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as being one who is born in the country, to parents who are BOTH citizens of that country. References to the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, bear in mind that two of these four cases were decided after 1868, which is the year the 14th Amendment was ratified.

Although there have been numerous opinions given on this matter, I have been unable to find one that trumps the Supreme Court. Under this definition, Senator Cruz would not be eligible for the presidency. The curious thing is, neither is Barack Obama. Anyone have a theory why we have a President, and a possible contender for the office, and according to the only definitions I have found, neither is eligible for the office?


http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

Brian Devon

Still beating that "birther" dead horse. You still think that horse is going to stand up and the Republicans can ride it into the White House? Yeah...the Republicans still have the keys to the White House. The only problem is that the American voters have changed all the locks.

Retired669

5 years later and these birther idiots are still at it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hell let those birther idiots run cruz and paul on the same ticket...Hillary won't even have to break a sweat to win... :thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Loki Loc: Georgia

Where did I say that Obama was not born in Hawaii? This has nothing to do with "birther." You have a problem, take it up with the Supreme Court; I provided the link for you and your echo chamber, Retarded 669. Fucking idiots.

Weyner

A couple of you guys are so stupid its hard to read your posts,I'm an American and you both talk like lo-life commies.I pity you both!

Brian Devon

Actually I was thinking of letting out a "family" secret. Huge numbers of Democrats pray to God every night...for the Republicans to choose a ticket of Rush Limbaugh/Newt Gingrich..........Was I wise to let the cat out of the bag???

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

the liberals want us to have Cruz run to justify obozo

Retired669

Don't they have 7 marriages between them? If so that could be a lucky number for them....Eh?...That would be a great ticket for all the idiot cons in this country to support. Two losers with no family values running for the highest offices in the land....WTF could possibly go wrong?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Loki Loc: Georgia

Everyone knows who Limbaugh and Gingrich are. Like them or not, they are multi-millionaires, and internationally known celebrities. No one knows, or cares who you are, unless it is your fan club of one. Who is the loser, asswipe?

Brian Devon

Beats me.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Brian Devon

Both Bushes are mass murderers and are millionaires. We all know Jesus is rooting for them to get into heaven...

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

Having spent a good amount of time trying to find the most authoritative source to rely upon in commenting on banjo's post, I found the most recent source - and one that would likely be relied upon, at least to some degree, by Congress or the Supreme Court in deciding if Rubio or Cruz were "natural born citizens" and eligible to run for president - to be a Congressional Research Service report dated November 14, 2011, titled "Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" Citizenship Eligibility Requirement". http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf (53 interesting pages)

Regarding President Obama's Eligibility:

Some of the cases concerning President Obama, or the candidate then-Senator Obama, had alleged or speculated that the President was not born in the United States, but rather was born in some foreign country or another. It should be noted that there is currently no requirement under federal law, nor was there under state law in 2008, for any federal candidate, that is, candidates to the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, or the office of President, to publish, produce, or release an official “birth certificate.” Under the inclusive democratic tradition within the United, there has never been any federal officer or bureaucracy which acts as a “gatekeeper” controlling who may be a federal candidate. Rather, there is in this country a general legal presumption of eligibility of the adult citizenry to hold political office and, as noted as early as 1875 by former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, and former Member of Congress (and chairman of the Committee on Elections), George W. McCrary, in his book, “A Treatise on the American Law of Elections,” discussing federal congressional elections, the legal presumption is always of eligibility, and thus the initial burden of proof is always upon those who challenge a candidate’s eligibility, and not on a candidate to “prove” eligibility:

[From “A Treatise on the American Law of Elections” 1875]
The presumption always is, that a person chosen to an office is qualified to fill it, and it is never incumbent upon him to prove his eligibility. The certificate of election does not add to this presumption, but simply leaves it where the law places it, and he who denies the eligibility of a person who is certified to be elected, must take the burden of proving that he is not eligible.

Its conclusion:

The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal for physical presence in the country.
---------------------------------
Contrary to banjo's conclusions (which I personally am not saying are invalid), this report concludes that all three (Obama, Cruz, and Rubio) are eligible to hold the office of President. The SCOTUS cases banjo cited included only passing references to the definition of "natural born citizen". In other words, the cases were not about the definition of "natural born citizen" as it relates to the presidency, which is the only citizenship issue to which the "natural born citizen" phrase applies. They are, therefore, only useful references in studying the issue; they are not case law precedents.

It appears to me, then, that the issue can only be settled by either a Supreme Court ruling on the specifics of Rubio's and Cruz's cases or an Amendment to the Consitution that clarifies the term "natural born citizen." Our Founding Father's didn't do a very good job with this wording. It is a critical eligibility criterion for the highest office in the land, and they should have not used a term that, even then, was an obscure term derived from British law.

thalightguy

A person born with citizenship to another country may be a citizen of the United States if born within the borders of the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof or born outside of its borders to at least one citizen Parent, but they are not a “natural born Citizen”. A Constitutional “natural born Citizen” is a person who is born with sole citizenship to the U.S.

At adoption the U.S. Constitution did not say who the “citizens of the United States” were, it only gave Congress the authority to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization.

After adoption before these rules were established there was only one way to become a citizen of the U.S., this was by being born within the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents. These children are the ones who the Founders understood to be the “natural born Citizens”.

Persons born outside of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents are not “natural born Citizens”, if they were Congress would not of needed to use the Authority granted to them by the Constitution to establish these children as “citizens of the United States”.

A person born in one generation cannot be a “natural born Citizen” if that same person born in another generation under the same birth circumstances would not even be a “Citizen of the United States”.

Congress does not have the authority to add or take away from who a “natural born Citizen” is, the definition of a "natural born Citizen" is the same today as when it was inserted into the Constitution and it will remain so until and if it is ever Amended.

The SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND the United States Constitution demands the President be a “natural born Citizen”. Something Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal are not and anyone else who is born with citizenship other than the United States of America.

Retired669

You know Brian it's obvious several of these ignorant ass cons on this board think that having money makes you special. One thing these stupid asses overlook is money can not buy you ethics or moral values which neither the drug addict or newty have. My guess is many of these cons around here have no ethics themselves, no moral values themselves and when it comes to money probably can't afford a pot to piss in.

They how ever do provide a useful service to this board and that's providing cheap entertainment for those of us who enjoy laughing at their non stop stupid posts. I do thank them for that.

I wonder what these cons will do when the drug addict finally comes out of the closet? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

In Obamas case, it may be that the Dems just wanted to win and repubs were so surprised and shocked that a black man won the nomination, that they couldn't think straight.