Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually, that's just your opinion.

Unless of course you have documentation or letters from the Framers themselves explaining what they meant by "Natural".

It could be well argued that the lack of explanation of the term anywhere in the writings points to the fact that it needed no explanation. There was certainly no explanation needed as to why the office was given restrictive qualifications.

I agree.

And that's why I personally believe 'natural born' (lowercase as seen in the Constitution) is indicative of a reference to natural law -- informal, rather than formal, and natural, as opposed to positive.

I do not believe the drafters intended to allow Congress or the Courts to limit the definition.

To define the term would mean to look outside what the Courts and Congress have defined as a citizen and find the one definition of a U.S. citizen that does not appear in any written law.

There are no laws granting citizenship to someone born to two U.S. citizen parents on undisputed U.S. soil. Such a person is born a citizen by virtue of natural law alone.

Obviously, this is just my opinion but it's the only explanation that satisfies all the questions I've heard raised...especially with regard to safeguards.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Sillyolme



Having the phrase determined by a court would greatly simplify things. It would no longer be an opinion of someone or group of someones. It would be defined and legally binding.

The meaning of the phrase is legally binding now. And yes if it were freshly defined by a modern court it would in fact be more likely than when it was writen an "opinion of someone or group of someone's".

The difference is Obama was born in the United States Cruz was not.

reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

The "natural born citizen" clause was put in because of the prejudice in those days against people born by Caesarian section. Something about being from the womb untimely ripped....

Close, they didn't want test tube babies taking over the Government.

originally posted by: damwel
The difference is Obama was born in the United States Cruz was not.

reply to: Xcathdra

And, yet, even that is up for debate. To this day, the Kingdom of Hawaii does not recognize the authority of the U.S. government.

Link to Kingdom of Hawaii government

As much of a non-issue as that may seem to most, the truth is Hawaii was overthrown in a bloodless coup and annexed in violation of an international treaty. Hypothetically, until that debate has been settled to the satisfaction of the Kingdom of Hawaii's government, the highest office in the U.S. could be infiltrated to enact revenge.

a reply to: eriktheawful

No it really is that simple. Just watch if the court rules on this that will be the answer.
You're either a citizen naturally in which case you can run for president. Or you have to become a citizen through the naturalization process. In that case you are not eligible to run for president.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually, that's just your opinion.

Unless of course you have documentation or letters from the Framers themselves explaining what they meant by "Natural".

It could be well argued that the lack of explanation of the term anywhere in the writings points to the fact that it needed no explanation. There was certainly no explanation needed as to why the office was given restrictive qualifications.

I agree.

And that's why I personally believe 'natural born' (lowercase as seen in the Constitution) is indicative of a reference to natural law -- informal, rather than formal, and natural, as opposed to positive.

Natural law was giving the greatest levity as valid....not informal at all but above all. It was the impetus legal philosophy for our revolution in the first place. At that I don't see "natural born" the term as being directly and closely connected to same.

originally posted by: Logarock
The meaning of the phrase is legally binding now. And yes if it were freshly defined by a modern court it would in fact be more likely than when it was writen an "opinion of someone or group of someone's".

So what does the court look at? Do they go to the dictionary to define each word...lol


Back when this was written there were still many that saw themselves as British and this was put into place to prevent a British monarchy from taking over America by vote.

I said Obama's case was complicated because our Founding Fathers used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution. With in that reference it states..

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

From his website...

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Both of Ted Cruz parents are American, Obama's Father was not....

It seems in this case that the only real question is whether Ted's mother was in fact a US citizen at the time of his birth.
Answer that and the issue becomes the same as that of John McCain which was decided in his favor because he didn't have to be naturalized. He is American by birth.
This is a much more complicated question than simple place of birth.
If it turns out she was a US citizen then the question of eligibility goes away completely.

originally posted by: damwel
The difference is Obama was born in the United States Cruz was not.

But there is the sticky wicket... It was more important to the Founding Fathers that your father's nationality set your own nationality, and Obama was born to a Kenyan Father under British rule.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually, that's just your opinion.

Unless of course you have documentation or letters from the Framers themselves explaining what they meant by "Natural".

It could be well argued that the lack of explanation of the term anywhere in the writings points to the fact that it needed no explanation. There was certainly no explanation needed as to why the office was given restrictive qualifications.

I agree.

And that's why I personally believe 'natural born' (lowercase as seen in the Constitution) is indicative of a reference to natural law -- informal, rather than formal, and natural, as opposed to positive.

Natural law was giving the greatest levity as valid....not informal at all but above all. It was the impetus legal philosophy for our revolution in the first place. At that I don't see "natural born" the term as being directly and closely connected to same.

I intended 'informal' to mean 'not defined in a formal body of law,' but universal in understanding among people.

And I see it as very relevant because 'natural law' and 'natural rights' were very much in the minds of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution.

ETA: There is only one definition that is universally agreed upon...a child born to two U.S. citizen parents on undisputed U.S. soil is without a doubt a 'natural-born citizen' of the United States. No other definition is universally agreed upon.

I do not believe that the drafters left this to majority vote or a branch of government to decide, or else it wouldn't even appear as an eligibility requirement.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Only one parent needs be an American and that is when someone is born on foreign soil. The fact that Obama was born on US soil makes him a citizen no matter what. Even if both his parents were from Mars he'd be a citizen so pointing out his father's citizenship means nothing.

a reply to: eriktheawful

On having the language clarified in a court I am in agreement.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xtrozero

Only one parent needs be an American and that is when someone is born on foreign soil. The fact that Obama was born on US soil makes him a citizen no matter what. Even if both his parents were from Mars he'd be a citizen so pointing out his father's citizenship means nothing.

I'm just pointing out what our Founding Fathers used in their framework and showing how they thought about it, so in their eyes his father's citizenship was important. Can you cite a document from our Founding Father's era that states "only one parent needs to be an American if the child is born on foreign soil'? Or one that states "neither parents need to be citizens if the child is born on US soil"?

Do you make this up as you go along, there is a difference between being a citizen and a citizen eligable for the POTUS office...hehe

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Logarock
The meaning of the phrase is legally binding now. And yes if it were freshly defined by a modern court it would in fact be more likely than when it was writen an "opinion of someone or group of someone's".

So what does the court look at? Do they go to the dictionary to define each word...lol


Back when this was written there were still many that saw themselves as British and this was put into place to prevent a British monarchy from taking over America by vote.

I said Obama's case was complicated because our Founding Fathers used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution. With in that reference it states..

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

From his website...

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Both of Ted Cruz parents are American, Obama's Father was not....

All of the language in the constitutionwas patriarchal . Women couldn't even own property back then. This language regarding gender is equal to saying mankind. Women are included in that.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What exactly are you disputing? What do you feel I'm making up?
Obama was born in Hawaii. That is part of the United States . That makes him a citizen.
Every one of my statements is fact.


www.usconstitution.net...



Article 2section 1 squares that up with natural born citizen. Bases covered.


en.m.wikipedia.org... says right there in the 14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Is a citizen.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

What exactly are you disputing? What do you feel I'm making up?
Obama was born in Hawaii. That is part of the United States . That makes him a citizen.
Every one of my statements is fact.

My child was born in Japan and he is also a citizen, so why does Cruz need to go to the court to prove he eligible for POTUS. Isn't that what we are talking about? Just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you are also eligible for POTUS.

So once again as in my other post can you cite anything that suggests your two examples of citizenship also makes you eligible for POTUS? I also just pointed out what our founding father thought and you suggested it was moot...That is just opinion and so I question you other statements as opinion and not fact.

a reply to: Xtrozero
And how do you know exactly what the founding fathers thought about it?

Why would they think that way? Being that NONE of them were native born Americans

Lots of supposition in your part that you're touring as fact

Cruz is eligible. And as I posted earlier the man filing this suit was an Obama birther who has already been shut down once by a court of law w this Cruz thing

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
And how do you know exactly what the founding fathers thought about it?

Reading what they wrote about...hmmmm lol

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

Also read the Federalist Papers, No. 78 as to what Hamilton wrote about the validity of using Vattel’s Laws of Nation as the foundation of our Constitution.

All I'm saying is under Vattel’s Laws of Nation Obama has a lesser right to be POTUS since his father was not an American than Cruz who just happened to be an american not born on American soil if you use the same reference as our Founding Fathers did.

Why would they think that way? Being that NONE of them were native born Americans

Lots of supposition in your part that you're touring as fact

No actually they fixed that part read it again...

Cruz is eligible. And as I posted earlier the man filing this suit was an Obama birther who has already been shut down once by a court of law w this Cruz thing

Of course he is, I'm not debating that. I'm debating that Obama eligibility to be POTUS is far more muddier waters than Cruz when one actually looks at what our Founders read and wrote about. I also am suggesting just how liberally corrupt our legal system is if they waited until Cruz comes along to define "Natural Born" after 8 years of the whole Obama thing.

When he is elected we will sing "Oh Canada, Oh Canada..."