Cruz releases his birth certificate

posted at 9:21 am on August 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

His father fled Castro’s Cuba.  His mother was born in the USA.  No one doubts where Ted Cruz was born — in Calgary, Canada.  In order to settle the issue of his citizenship status, the Senator from Texas has released his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News, but it’s not likely to have much impact on the debate over his eligibility for the presidency:

Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.

Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.

That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.

“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.

The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce.”

The US and Canada have nearly identical birthright citizenship laws. The act of being born inside the country confers automatic citizenship by birth — but so does being born of an adult citizen of the country anywhere else in the world.  The US version of that latter concept wasn’t clarified until well after John McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal zone, but was well established by 1970 when Cruz was born.

The presidential requirement of being a “natural born citizen” in Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution is unique, in that the concept has pretty much no other application in American life.  However, it’s not so unique as to be completely without analogy or comprehension.  A natural-born citizen can be defined as an American that does not require extra intervention to access citizenship rights.  If Cruz had to go through the naturalization process to vote, for instance, or to get a US passport, then he would not qualify to run for President.  Instead, Cruz has been able to legally exercise his rights as a citizen without any other intervention except his coming of age, as all American citizens do.  Current law makes it clear that regardless of how Canada sees Cruz, the US saw him as a citizen by provenance of his birth — a natural-born citizen.

So why release the birth certificate at all?  I suspect Cruz is being a little tongue-in-cheek here, since the document really doesn’t have any bearing on the question his critics are asking.  Since the question is itself silly, Cruz must figure the best approach is to have a laugh about it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Princess bluegill being a Cruz Crusader has me feeling like “the genius” in “The Princess Bride”. Is bluegill pulling off some reverse pychology, by being so adamantly for Cruz, in hopes that we will eventually reject him, so that one of her Moderates will get the nomination, instead?

My head hurts.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Over

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM

I keep seeing references to “liberal birtherism” regarding Cruz. But I don’t see any such thing in reality. The only liberal blog posts I’ve seen on the question are ones that side with Cruz being a natural born citizen.

Some liberals, however, do find it funny that now birthers are becoming an annoyance to conservative candidates rather than just Obama.

AngusMc on August 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM

NATURAL BORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you are the sum totals of your PARENTS!!!!!?????????????????????????

billofrights on August 19, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Needs moar punctuation to be truly convincing!

AngusMc on August 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Would someone please show me the

birthright citizenship laws

anchor baby law

?

And please don’t use the 14th Amendment – as there is a ‘unspoken’ little known clause in it that precludes ‘anchor baby’/birthright citizenship - and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. As far as I’m aware – the only time a foreign citizen is ‘subject’ to America’s jurisdiction is in criminal matters – and squatting to have a baby – isn’t a crime.
Cruz’s mother was an American citizen and since she graduated from college in the 1950s – and signs the birth certificate – she was legally eligible in 1970 to confer American citizenship on him (15 years consecutive residing in America plus 4 more years) as an American citizen.

Obama (omg, a ‘birther’ speaks) does not have the same situation – even if he was conceived, born and raised in the Lincoln bedroom – his father was a British citizen (Kenya did not achieve Independence until Dec 1963) and the British Nationality Law of 1948 (not changed until the 70s) stated that a child of a British citizen was a British citizen no matter where in the world the child was born. Further complicated by the fact that his mother was 18 at the time of his birth. Where is the paperwork from Ann’s parents legally approving her marriage and/or an emancipated minor paperwork? This was 1960 (conception) and 1961 (marriage) – the legal age for signing legal documents was 21. She had to have a guardian or legally signed and approved documents. She just could not sign those papers on a whim – not legally.
Marco Rubio is also not qualified – as his parents did not become citizens until 4 years after his birth.
This ‘we are the world’ destruction of the Constitution, America’s sovereign borders and laissez faire approach to ‘citizenship’ is going to destroy America.

jackal40 on August 19, 2013 at 10:45 AM

So why would it matter if Obama were born to an American mother in Kenya?

tikvah on August 19, 2013 at 9:29 AM

For practicality, it would not. If it ever came to SCOTUS, they would rule in favor of his being a natural born citizen based upon just that.

However, by the statute that existed at the time of his birth, he would not be (it’s been changed to what Bmore pointed out since then). Even under current statute, his mother would not qualify since she was actually too young.

I wrote a long blog post on this back in the day when the Obama birthers were going crazy. The key parts:

First, you have to understand that while “natural born citizenship” is a Constitutional requirement to hold the office of President, nowhere in the Constitution does it state the requirements for “natural born citizenship”. That’s set by statute. That’s very important, because the statute is not constant. It has been changed many times and will likely be changed again.

According to current statute, he would be a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born. According to statutes in effect at the time of his birth, he would not be, but only because he was born about 5 months too soon (His mother needed to be older).

So, what does that mean?

Well, the statute could be changed to make current requirements valid back to the time of Obama’s birth. Or a new statute could be passed making the terms even more or less restrictive. Of, Congress could just declare him a natural born citizen, as they did with John McCain. Or, if this or some other birthright citizenship case made it to the Supreme Court, SCOTUS could rule that even the current requirements are too restrictive. If they did so, then he would likely be a natural born citizen because his mother was, regardless of her age or where he was born.

So, there’s about a half dozen ways that he could legally become a natural born citizen retroactively, even if he’s not one now. To avoid a Constitutional crisis, it is an absolute certainty that at least one of these would happen.

In other words, this issue is a complete waste of time. The Constitution is not specific enough in this respect to have any sort of valid argument that he’s a non-citizen, or non-natural born citizen.

A lot of this applies to Cruz as well.

Chris of Rights on August 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Cruz is a great guy, however I think you all should stop playing Constitutional citizenship attorney’s and Cruz should seek a ruling prior to any run. This issue will not be settled without it.

Tater Salad on August 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM

There was never any ruling for Obama. Why do you think one should be obtained for Cruz?

Conservative4Ever on August 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM

RINOs and Leftists finally learn the difference between ‘natural born’ and citizen.

hahahahahaha

hahahahahaha

faraway on August 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM

If I may ask all of you a question, at the time the Constitution was signed – 1787 – did the US recognize dual nationality/citizenship?

Does it even matter to most of you what the laws were at the time the US Constitution was signed?

GrandeMe on August 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM

There was never any ruling for Obama. Why do you think one should be obtained for Cruz?

Conservative4Ever on August 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Obama was born in the US…so why would anyone (of rational state of mind) need a ruling?

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Chris of Rights on August 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Chris you clearly left out the important issue regarding the McCain ruling; both parents were US citizens, who were stationed at a US diplomatic outpost on behalf of the US government.

Tater Salad on August 19, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Resist We Much on August 19, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Sophie, you came to mind instantly. I hate stupid reporters, passionately.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Obama was born in the US…so why would anyone (of rational state of mind) need a ruling?

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I wish the SC would take it up, for both, alas…it’ll never happend, because of obama.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 10:55 AM

happen

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 10:55 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Questions remain, Skippy.

The young <a href="http://kingsjester.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/obama-sweet-home-

hawaii-or-kenya/”>“born leader” soon signed with a Literary Agency, for the purpose of marketing an upcoming book. The Literary Agency, Acton & Dystel, published a brochure in 1991 which included the following short biography of the young liege:

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM

There was never any ruling for Obama. Why do you think one should be obtained for Cruz?

Conservative4Ever on August 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM

First – IF Obama were to have been born in a foreign country (as Cruz clearly was) then there should have been a formal ruling.

Second – The GOP should be the party of the Constitution and rule of law, therefore we should never have the appearance of law that is made up to fit our agenda.

Tater Salad on August 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM

And please don’t use the 14th Amendment – as there is a ‘unspoken’ little known clause in it that precludes ‘anchor baby’/birthright citizenship – and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. As far as I’m aware – the only time a foreign citizen is ‘subject’ to America’s jurisdiction is in criminal matters – and squatting to have a baby – isn’t a crime.

But that’s precisely the clause that legalizes anchor babies as natural born citizens. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the person is required to obey the laws of the United States or face arrest. All foreigners in the U.S. except ambassadors with diplomatic immunity are required to obey U.S. law and can be arrested for not doing so. (At the time of the passage of the 14th amendment the language also exempted tribal members born on semi-autonomous Indian reservations)

AngusMc on August 19, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Does it even matter to most of you what the laws were at the time the US Constitution was signed?

GrandeMe on August 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Would that include any laws concerning SLAVERY or the status of Women?

Who cares what the LAWS were at the time of Founding. What matters is the CONSTITUTION. Laws change thru time….if your argument is, “No Dual Citizenship” in 1789 so Nyah-Nyah-No to Cruz, that’s foolish. Law has changed in 200 plus years…the Constitution far less so.

The Constitution refers to Natural Born Citizens, it provides NO definition of same. The definition can change thru time as the LAW changes.

From the Constitution we can say, NO, Granholm and Schwarzenegger canNOT be POTUS, as they are clearly NOT “natural born”, but who is or is not natural is more flexible.

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Now everyone in America will know Ted Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. LOL, we also know his legal first name is Rafael. Boy, the attack ads write themselves:

Born Rafael Cruz in Alberta, Canada and the son of a White Hispanic; Rafael would later attend Princeton , Harvard Law School, and would go on to pursue a career in government where he became President George W. Bush’s domestic policy advisor. His wife, Heidi Cruz, works as Vice President for Goldman Sachs…

They’ll Romney-ize Cruz and make Bill and Hill look like a nice middle class couple that understands everyday people. 2016 just might be ’92 and ’96 all over again only worse with the Democrat-friendly demographics in full swing.

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Again, I am amazed at the total lack of concern about the eligibility restrictions in out Constitution. That is a LAW people, not a suggestion.

Do you all know that the Article ll eligibility restriction has never been amended? Not a single law or Act passed since the Constitution was signed amends one word of that clause.

Do most of you know that dual nationality was NOT recognized in the US at the time the Constitution was signed?

Oh, but like obama, Cruz has a cult following, so it just doesn’t matter.

GrandeMe on August 19, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Obama was born in the US…so why would anyone (of rational state of mind) need a ruling?

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I wish the SC would take it up, for both, alas…it’ll never happend, because of obama.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 10:55 AM

On Obama, whhat would they take it up for ?
There is absolutely no reason at all to. They didn’t ever and would never even consider it.

With respect to Cruz – who is actually foreign born, I could see them maybe bandying the idea about. And if forced to, rule in favor of his eligibility. BUT, that would have zero impact on birthers. They will seek a ruling only to affirm their desired outcome. When they are defeated, they’ll wail on about the ‘illegitimacy’ of the court and it’s ruling.

(P.S. – When will spell-check start accepting that ‘birther’ is indeed a word…)

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Do you want Cheese with that Whine????

Really just SHUT UP….

That’s was going to happen to ANY GOP candidate.

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:04 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Questions remain, Skippy.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM

For some irrational diehards, sure.
On the moon landing too.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM

verbie, you are wrong on all 3.

To the latter, “birther” is in your court…see Hillary, who started it with obama.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM

On the moon landing too.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Heh, Diana’s death just prompted a new investigation too :)

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Second look at transparency?

MT on August 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM

So why would it matter if Obama were born to an American mother in Kenya?

tikvah on August 19, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Under the law as it applied when Obama and Cruz were born, if a person was born outside the U.S. and its possessions and had one parent who was an alien, the person would only be a citizen from birth if the other parent was a U.S. citizen who had been physically present in the United States before the person’s birth for at least 10 years, at least five of which were after that parent turned 14 years old.

(The law has since been changed — now the U.S. citizen parent would only need to have been present in the U.S. for at least 5 years before the person was born, at least two of which were after that parent turned 14 years old.)

Hence, since Barack Sr. was an alien to the U.S., if Barack Jr. had been born in Kenya (WHICH IN REALITY HE WASN’T), he would only be a citizen if his mother had been present in the U.S. before his birth for at least five years after turning 14 years old. But Ann Dunham gave birth to Barack Jr. when she was 18 — she hadn’t been present anywhere for five years between turning 14 and the birth of Barack Jr. Thus, Barack Jr. could not have attained U.S. citizenship at birth had he been born in Kenya (which, in reality, he wasn’t).

The law was the same when Cruz was born as when Obama was born. Cruz was in fact born outside the U.S. and had one parent who was an alien. But his mother had been present in the U.S. for at least 10 years, including at least 5 after she turned 14, before — Ted’s mother was older when he was born than Barack’s mother was when he was born. I can’t find the specifics of his mother’s biography, but I looked this up before and I’m sure that Ted Cruz’s mother met the requirements. She graduated from Rice University in 1956, so she would have been about 21 then, and Ted wasn’t born until 1970. So Ted Cruz would have been a U.S. citizen by birth.

J.S.K. on August 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Chris you clearly left out the important issue regarding the McCain ruling; both parents were US citizens, who were stationed at a US diplomatic outpost on behalf of the US government.

Tater Salad on August 19, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I didn’t bring it up because it would only confuse the issue. There are many reasons to argue that McCain was indeed a natural born citizen, and not really any good reasons to argue otherwise. However, there were some crazies that had questioned it, so the Senate, in an effort to head them off, passed a non-binding resolution declaring him a natural born citizen. This doesn’t carry any real weight either, but was an effort to mute the whiners.

My point in mentioning McCain at all was that Congress would almost certainly do the same thing for Obama, if pressed, and for Cruz as well. Neither Congress nor SCOTUS want a Constitutional crisis over the birth eligibility of a candidate who can be argued to be in a grey area. And they’ll do whatever necessary to eliminate or at least pretend to eliminate any grayness.

The only way either would get involved in the other direction would be in a clearly black-and-white scenario. Arnold Schwarzenegger is clearly not a natural born citizen, nor is the current Pope. If either of them tried to run for President, they would be declared ineligible immediately.

Chris of Rights on August 19, 2013 at 11:09 AM

The Constitution refers to Natural Born Citizens, it provides NO definition of same. The definition can change thru time as the LAW changes.

From the Constitution we can say, NO, Granholm and Schwarzenegger canNOT be POTUS, as they are clearly NOT “natural born”, but who is or is not natural is more flexible.

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

You also said, “Who cares what the LAWS were at the time of Founding”

I didn’t mention the laws at founding, but thanks for the attempt to “nudge” us away from the focus.

I was indeed speaking of the law in 1787, at the time the Constitution was signed. You are emoting. I am not.

The Article ll clause was never amended, so it matters not what laws have come and gone since the Constitution was signed – none have altered that restriction for eligibility. If they had, do you think that there would have been eight or nine attempts made to amend that clause? All of those failed. So……….in through the back door come the breakers.

GrandeMe on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

14th amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURAL BORN AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…

WHAT JOHN BINGHAM SAID ON MARCH 9, 1866,

“Has the Congress of the United States the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to us from the committee?

Has the Congress of the United States the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no discrimination of civil rights among citizens of the United States in any State of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.

I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States thatthere shall be no discrimination amang them of civil rights?

Obviously, John Bingham was not talking about the Fourteenth Amendment which was not even introduced for consideration until several months later. The later 14th Amendment defined as citizens at birth, i.e., natural born citizens, all who were born within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there of.While John Bingham is known as the father of the 14th Amendment, he neither drafted nor introduced the Citizenship Clause therein. That was the work of Jacob Howard in the Senate. The oft-cited quote of Bingham is about different text in an 1866 bill in the House, prior to the initial introduction of what would become the 14th amendment. Bingham’s remarks were in opposition to the Civil Rights bill ….”RIGHTS OF CITIZENS”.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being Senate bill No. 61, to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means for their vindication; the pending question being on the motion to recommit, on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] was entitled to the floor.[...]The simple principle of the bill under consideration and its whole essence is contained in its first section. The rest is all matter of detail. The whole life and substance of the bill is in its first section. That section enacts that—[Mr. THAYER] …

” All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and without distinction of color, there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
Now, sir, what is there in that? Let me appeal to the common sense and judgment of every member of this House when I put the question. What is there in that to challenge the denunciation which the House listened to yesterday from the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr.Rogers?] Is any man to be injured by it? Are any man’s rights to be invaded or taken away byit? Who will pretend that such is the case?

It is an enactment simply declaring that all men born upon the soil of the United States shall enjoy the fundamental rights of citizenship.

What rights are these? Why, sir, in order to avoid any misapprehension they are stated in the bill. The same section goes on to define with greater particularity the civil rights and immunities which are to be protected by the bill.WHAT JOHN BINGHAM WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT – THE 14TH AMENDMENT.WHAT SENATOR JACOB HOWARD SAID AS HE OFFERED THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE OF THE14TH AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE.[This is what the actual author of that clause said in explanation of it. Representative Bingham was in the House. Bingham neither drafted nor offered the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment which was offered in the Senate. Note: The Congressional Globe is the official record of that time.]http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11CONGRESSIONAL GLOBEUnited States SenateMay 30, 1866 RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumedthe consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment tothe Constitution of the United States.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. HOWARD.]

Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

I do not propose to say any thing on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words “section one,” to insert: All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

So that the section will read :SEC. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, no rdeny to any person within its jurisdiction tho equal protection of the laws.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment — I presume he will have no objection to it — by inserting after the word “thereof” the words “excluding Indians not taxed.” The amendment would then read: All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the” consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.= = = = = = = = =The quote of John Bingham is taken from his remarks in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as unconstitutional.

JOHN BINGHAM’S 30 MINUTE REMARKS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 IN COMPLETE,UNEDITED CONTEXT.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBEHouse of RepresentativesMarch 9, 1866Page 1290http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=331

John Bingham Quote About Natural Born Citizen – Not About 14th Amendment

Bingham on Natural Born Citizen – debate on text of Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment.

Download or Print

Add To Collection

2.8K

Reads

5

Readcasts

2

Embed Views

Published by

nolu chan

Follow

Search

TIP Press Ctrl-F to search anywhere in the document.

Get Scribd Mobile

To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we’ll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.

Text me

We’ll never share your phone number.

iTunes App Store | Google Play Store

Info and Rating

Category:
Business/Law > Finance

Rating:

Upload Date: 10/05/2009
Copyright: Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:

14th Amendment

natural born citizen

fourteenth

.

Free download as Text file (.txt), PDF File (.pdf) or read online for free.

Flag for inappropriate content

.

Download and print this document




Choose a format to download in

.PDF

.TXT

Download

Recommended
.

1 p.

Rep John Bingham Father of 14th Amendment Defined Natural Born Citizen
Jefferson’s Rebels

1751 Reads.

199 p.

Brief on Behalf of Objectors in Kerchner-Laudenslager v. Obama Penn…
puzo1

717 Reads.

12 p.

Obama Fails E-Verify – Proof He Stole SSN
Pamela Barnett

26665 Reads.

Next

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

More From This User
.

12 p.

CRS – TRICARE and VA Health Care – Impact of the Patient Protection…
nolu chan

13 Reads.

18 p.

CRS – Potential Employer Penalties Under the Patient Protection and…
nolu chan

14 Reads.

42 p.

CRS – New Entities Created Pursuant to the Patient Protection and A…
nolu chan

13 Reads.

Next

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Notes

Add a note. (Limit 400 characters)Post Note

nolu chana year ago

[silverbull8] http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.c… Link goes to Leo “Paraclete” Donofrio. “Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:” Black was Supreme Court Reporter, not Supreme Court Justice.

nolu chana year ago

The words of Bingham were not said about the 14th Amendment which did not exist when they were spoken. They were said of text in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” is too clear to admit of controversy. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been decided and upheld for over a century.

nolu chana year ago

Birth in Hawaii is under the jurisdiction of the USA. Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt was the lead prosecutor in a case presentation rife with perjury.

Austin Jessupa year ago

There is no way to misconstrue these words, no matter how hard you try: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen” NO FAULT

Austin Jessupa year ago

At the time of his birth Barack Obama was under the jurisdiction of the British crown. This makes him ineligible to hold office. These are the words of the man who worked in tandem with James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. John Bingham also was the man who prosecuted in the Lincoln assassination. Much respect

silverbull8a year ago

Presence in every sovereign State Of the Union is governed by the State, then the Federal Government. Birth certificates issue in the name of the State, and States determine voter access to the ballot, by minimum domicile.

nolu chana year ago

One need not be an eligible voter to gain access to the ballot. Women were eligible to the office of president before they could vote. The Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements and states cannot add any qualifications.

silverbull8a year ago

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.c

nolu chana year ago

Amdt 14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE. RESIDE. Residence. DOMICILE is not referenced. Anyone who was born or naturalized in the US, who takes up RESIDENCE in CA, is a citizen of CA. There are no immigration officials for entry to one state from another.

AboutAbout Scribd
Team
Blog
Join our team!
Contact Us

PremiumPremium Reader
Scribd Store

Advertise with usGet started

AdChoices

SupportHelp
FAQ
Press

PartnersDevelopers / API

LegalTerms
Privacy
Copyright

Get Scribd Mobile
Scribd on Appstore

Scribd on Google Play
Mobile Site

© Copyright 2013 Scribd Inc.

Language:

English

Spinner_50x50

billofrights on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

We’re not electing a foreigner, JFKY.

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Oh, so the “Kenyan” reference by his agent was just a “happy mistake” which just happened to be discovered in 2007, before he launched his campaign?

I have a couple of bridges over the Mississippi River at Memphis I will sell to you at a bargain price, if you are interested.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

On the moon landing too.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Heh, Diana’s death just prompted a new investigation too :)

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM

She was killed on the moon.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

It is backwards.

astonerii on August 19, 2013 at 9:39 AM

As are you.

katy the mean old lady on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Oh, so the “Kenyan” reference by his agent was just a “happy mistake” which just happened to be discovered in 2007, before he launched his campaign?

I have a couple of bridges over the Mississippi River at Memphis I will sell to you at a bargain price, if you are interested.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I don’t doubt any all that you think you have some bridges to sell.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM

billofrights on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Can anyone see Reince Priebus explaining to the low-info on Meet the Press that Rafael Cruz (that’s what he’ll be called by 2016 by the Left) does have a Canadian birth certificate but, constitutionally-speaking (I guess?) could be POTUS?

Just how badly do we want to lose this election?

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM

The man is a great communicator:

http://youtu.be/aCoOqLOu1XE

The situation and what we need to about it is made clear. No wishy washy talk, no hysterics. Just calm, clear, powerful and direct.

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I did not doubt that you would buy them. That Obama Kool-aid is some potent stuff, and you have already exhibited on this website.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM

I call them as I see them. I don’t play the “GOPe vs moderate” game all the time and force people into those boxes. I want the most conservative candidate who can win.

Cruz is a brilliant man and inspirational patriot, and he can win. Who wouldn’t be for him? He is someone who can unite us all here. I don’t want to get into bickering, though, as Happy Nomad said. Our focus first should be 2014.

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM

He is someone who totally supports, and is indebted to, Sarah Palin.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM

billofrights seems to be a parody account. That’s the only way I can expliain how someone can post this:

14th amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURAL BORN AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…

billofrights on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

And then immediately provide a quote that contradicts what they just said

I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen

AngusMc on August 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I think I am sad to discover that I’m in mostly in agreement with verbaluce on this issue. My only quibble would be that while I do believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, I think there exists sufficient evidence to question that belief.

My quibble with the birthers from the very beginning is that I don’t see that it matters whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii. Even if it was proven that he’s from Kenya, and his eligibility came before SCOTUS, SCOTUS would rule in favor of Obama. In fact, I think it’d likely be a 9-0 vote.

There’s just too much grey area in the terms “natural born citizen” and “citizen by birth”, and the fact that neither are defined explicitly in the Constitution. It’s been left to statute, and the statute has changed numerous times over the years and will likely be changed again at some point.

This was a failure of the founding fathers. If they wanted to make being a natural born citizen a requirement for the Presidency, they should have explicitly stated the requirements for being one as well. They did not, and hence we have a mess. And it’s a mess that no SCOTUS would want to deal with, so they’ll always take the easiest way out possible, and give the benefit of the doubt to the candidate.

Chris of Rights on August 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Lolz! ; )

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The issue all along about BHO has been his lack of transparency, all the while claiming to be the most transparent administration evah.

Valid questions about his birth certificate(s).

Passport records: SEALED

Occidental College admission and academic records: SEALED

Columbia admission and academic records: SEALED.

Harward admissions and academic records: SEALED

Medical records: SEALED

Client records at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland: SEALED

Law license records: SEALED.

One does not have their academic, medical, and legal records SEALED unless they have something to hide.

GAlpha10 on August 19, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The Article ll clause was never amended, so it matters not what laws have come and gone since the Constitution was signed – none have altered that restriction for eligibility. If they had, do you think that there would have been eight or nine attempts made to amend that clause? All of those failed. So……….in through the back door come the breakers.

GrandeMe on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

And WHERE is this oh-so critical phrase defined, IN THE CONSTITUTION?

(I’ll steal shameless and say, “I’m setting my Sundial #2″)

There is NO definition is there? Hence the law currently is the what matters, not what Vattel wrote THEN or what Madison wrote THEN…had that been the the “definition” it would have/should have been incorporated.

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:22 AM

billofrights on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Heck of a comment right there. I can rent you some storage space if you’d like. Lolz! ; )

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Cruz is a brilliant man and inspirational patriot, and he can win. Who wouldn’t be for him? He is someone who can unite us all here. I don’t want to get into bickering, though, as Happy Nomad said. Our focus first should be 2014.

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Cruz will get his a** handed to him by Clinton Inc. and could very well lose states like West Virginia and Kentucky in the GE — on top of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina, I should add.

You can’t run against “the elites” when you went to Harvard Law by way of Princeton; spent your career in government; worked for Dubya; and happen to be married to a Vice President for Goldman Sachs.

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 11:22 AM

That could be a new record.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Lolz! Just glad where it said phone number it was left blank. ; )

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 11:25 AM

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I’m sorry just who do you think CAN win??? You gonna run your garbage collector? YOU???

You’re being an idiot….he isn’t going to lose KY or NC, that’s for sure…

and if he loses VA or OH, it isn’t because he’s Harvard-trained, it’s because he’s a Republican or hasn’t connected to the voters…

Basically you are using a non-issue to beat on a candidate, tell me YOUR candidate and I’ll gladly demonstrate how s/he is a member of the uncaring 1% and TOTALLY out-of-touch with the Middle Class.

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM

You can’t run against “the elites” when you went to Harvard Law by way of Princeton; spent your career in government; worked for Dubya; and happen to be married to a Vice President for Goldman Sachs.

Can ya win IF your hubbie makes $17 Million/year giving speeches?

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

There is a truckload of evidence indicating that the “birth certificate” Obama released and purported to be his, is fraudulent. No “court” will take it up because of standing, not because of any deficiency or lack of evidence.

Plenty of evidence, no one in the nation has standing to bring the case.

I guess all those years that Obamnesty “studied” on how to defeat and marginalize the Constitution really paid off. He found a loophole he’s been able to use to enable his entire “Presidency”.

Like I said a few days ago, if Cruz is prevented from running for and taking the office of President, should he win, Washington better be prepared to start rolling back every single thing Obama did while he was “President”.

Meople on August 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I think I am sad to discover that I’m in mostly in agreement with verbaluce on this issue.

Chris of Rights on August 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Don’t be sad.
I’m sure it’s a temporary condition…it will pass.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

BTW, if you like Palin she’s a rich 1% herself…what does she know about making ends meet, after her 6 figure income?

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I guess all those years that Obamnesty “studied” on how to defeat and marginalize the Constitution really paid off. He found a loophole he’s been able to use to enable his entire “Presidency”.

Meople on August 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Yea…he’s oh so clever.
Two “terms”.
And he’ll even have a “library”.
In some “city”.
That you can “go to”.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM

He is someone who totally supports, and is indebted to, Sarah Palin.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Just another reason to like Ted Cruz.

Harbingeing on August 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Sorry, but I would never set foot in Obama’s Presidential Mosque and Madrassa.

And is that all you got? That’s the best you can do? Guess you’re just in agreement with the rest of my post. Good to know.

Meople on August 19, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Don’t be sad.
I’m sure it’s a temporary condition…it will pass.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Well, the agreement on this issue won’t change unless you change your mind. I’ve held this position since the issue first came up back in 2007.

But I’m sure agreements with you in general, will be minimal.

Chris of Rights on August 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I love this guy more every day. !!!

CRUZ 2016

stenwin77 on August 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Oh, but like obama, Cruz has a cult following, so it just doesn’t matter.

GrandeMe on August 19, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Ruh oh, didja hear that fish? You’re a cultist. LOL This is amusing…

Fallon on August 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM

You can’t run against “the elites” when you went to Harvard Law by way of Princeton; spent your career in government; worked for Dubya; and happen to be married to a Vice President for Goldman Sachs.

Can ya win IF your hubbie makes $17 Million/year giving speeches?

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Yes you can if you’re a Democrat from Arkansas named Bill Clinton.

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM

billofrights on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

You’re new to this whole blog comment thing, aren’t you?

Bishop on August 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM

posted at 9:21 am on August 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

regardless of how Canada sees Cruz, the US saw him as a citizen by provenance of his birth — a natural-born citizen.

That assumes that “citizen at birth” == “natural born citizen”.

It is not debated that “citizen at birth” == “born citizen”.

What is debated is whether or not “citizen at birth” == “natural born citizen”.

The word “natural” has meaning. I believe the Founders’ original intent was in reference to “natural law”. Note well that the Declaration of Independence begins:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What is the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”?
One who has no other ties to any other country because they are:

born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Why does the Constitution specify that the Commander in Chief of our military forces has to be a “natural born citizen”?

Because John Jay (who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court) wrote to George Washington (then President of the Constitutional Convention) saying:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The point was that the Commander in Chief of our military forces would never have been a citizen or subject of another country or sovereign.

And that is why many believe that someone born a dual citizen is a “born citizen”, but NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

Natural born citizens do not need any man-made law to make them citizens, because they naturally have no connection to any other country.

ITguy on August 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM

I find this to be very helpful. Hat Tip DaveO

STEP 1: Were you born in the territory of the US?
–if YES, STOP. You are a natural born citizen.
–if NO, go to STEP 2

STEP 2: Were both your parents citizens of the US?
–if YES, STOP. You ARE a natural born citizen.
–if NO, go to STEP 3

STEP 3: Was one of your parents a citizen of the US?
–if YES, go to STEP 4
–if NO, STOP. You are not a natural born citizen.

STEP 4: At the time of your birth, did this parent reside in the US for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 16?
–if YES, STOP. You are a natural born citizen.
–if NO, STOP. You are not a natural born citizen.

DaveO on August 13, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Very helpful. Thanks for posting

stenwin77 on August 19, 2013 at 11:40 AM

billofrights on August 19, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Dude,I totally read that. Every single word. L0L

CoolAir on August 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Don’t know if you’re right, but I want him to run. We can put him to the test and see how he handles the primaries.

Just remember which semi candidate last time polled the best among working class voters… Donald Trump. He went to Wharton.

Candidates aren’t defined by their alma mater or spouses’ jobs. It’s how they connect with voters and what kind of persona they are associated with.

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Some liberals, however, do find it funny that now birthers are becoming an annoyance to conservative candidates rather than just Obama.

AngusMc on August 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Not sure what you mean by “now”… birthers had cast a wide net from the start… they had McCain in their crosshairs as well, and several others.

The Schaef on August 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM

BTW, if you like Palin she’s a rich 1% herself…what does she know about making ends meet, after her 6 figure income?

JFKY on August 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

You can be rich and still be middle class. It’s a class issue, not an economic issue. Palin’s rich, but went to a state university and most likely shops at Walmart. Her son is in the army and her daughter had a child out of wedlock. Most Americans can identify with Palin which is why Democrats had to destroy her early.

Rafael Cruz, on the other hand, is rich, went to Northeastern universities, probably doesn’t hunt, is rather beta-ish, and has a corporate wife who is a VP for hated Goldman Sachs. He would actually make for a good Democrat like Romney given his background.

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM

…(W)e also know his legal first name is Rafael?

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

The Millennials are going to be swayed if we run a Ninja Turtle against The Shredder Hillary.

(Yeah, I know, it’s spelled Raphael, work with me here… Millennials can’t spell. )

Fallon on August 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

ITguy on August 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM

You again? Shouldn’t you be off with Arapaio’s Cold Case Posse trying to convince people that Obama’s birth certificate is fake?

You were wrong about Obama not being eligible. You were wrong when you claimed his birth certificate was fake.

And you are wrong again now about your claims that Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen. Anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.

Please take your embarrassing birther garbage to the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones Illuminati Watch forum.

You embarrass this site by posting all the stupid birther garbage.

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

You can be rich and still be middle class. It’s a class issue, not an economic issue. Palin’s rich, but went to a state university and most likely shops at Walmart. Her son is in the army and her daughter had a child out of wedlock. Most Americans can identify with Palin which is why Democrats had to destroy her early.

Rafael Cruz, on the other hand, is rich, went to Northeastern universities, probably doesn’t hunt, is rather beta-ish, and has a corporate wife who is a VP for hated Goldman Sachs. He would actually make for a good Democrat like Romney given his background.

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM

You’ve just explained why we should run them on the same ticket. ;-)

Okay, I’m having too much fun, gotta go.

Fallon on August 19, 2013 at 11:51 AM

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

As opposed to the constant embarrassment you prove to be to this site? Lolz!

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Cruz/Palin

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM

bluegill, see my comment to you, in the headlines and in the main, on the detention of Miranda. Gave you a very good long reading assignment. Take it very seriously.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 11:55 AM

The Millennials are going to be swayed if we run a Ninja Turtle against The Shredder Hillary.
(Yeah, I know, it’s spelled Raphael, work with me here… Millennials can’t spell. )
Fallon on August 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Yes! Wasn’t Raphael the tough, serious one?

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM

bluegill, see my comment to you, in the headlines and in the main, on the detention of Miranda. Gave you a very good long reading assignment. Take it very seriously.
Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I will go check it out now and read it by tonight. Thanks!!

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I repeat

Back up your claim with a link showing where the evidence in Mike Zullo’s sworn Affidavit has been “debunked”.

And if you can’t, then admit that what you wrote is false.

ITguy on August 19, 2013 at 11:58 AM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM

You keep avoiding the questio: Why did d’ohbama claim to be “born in Kenya” for the publicity blurb?
And, if it was, indeed, just a mistake by his agent, why didn’t d’ohbama correct that mistake? Did he think that it made him seem moe “authentic”, believable or “exotic” to have been “born in Kenya”? If so, wouldn’t that make him complicit in a lie (iow, a liar) for financial gain? i.e.: A fraudster.

Are you saying that we selected a liar…a fraud…as pResident?

Solaratov on August 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I will go check it out now and read it by tonight. Thanks!!

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM

It’s very, very long, but the detention was a direct result of it. The characters are all in there…

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Sorry, but I would never set foot in Obama’s Presidential Mosque and Madrassa.

Meople on August 19, 2013 at 11:36 AM

You seem so deluded certain.
Don’t ever go changin’.

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Obama was born in the US…so why would anyone (of rational state of mind) need a ruling?

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Yes, one of the extra 7 states right?

Nutstuyu on August 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Wow, a guy who only maybe, possibly, might be a Presidential candidate released his birth certificate BEFORE he runs for the office!? How novel! So we can, like, verify that Constitutional requirement BEFORE he’s elected? The hell you say! Next thing ya know, he’ll say, if elected, he’ll actually enforce the law! Incredible!

The presidential requirement of being a “natural born citizen” in Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution is unique, in that the concept has pretty much no other application in American life.

The reason why that is important was that the Founders didn’t want a President to be a person who spent his formative years in another country under another culture. In other words, they wanted future Presidents (after the nation was established) to be “American”. Since no planes or other forms of high speed travel existed then, being born in another nation usually meant spending a lot of time there, or you had parents from that nation, and you looked at the world differently.

Again, the idea is to make sure that the leader of the nation actually has values associated with the nation, the people he represents, and not those of another nation that may be alien or counter to the U.S.’s.

THAT particular issue is more relevant now than ever. For example, whether President Obama was born in country X or Y, border-wise, is a legal issue that helps determine his formative upbringing. And even if he was a natural born citizen, keep in mind he spent his formative years overseas, and later on had mentors who were decidedly anti-American. THAT is more important than actual location of birth, which is only a legal eligibility issue.

You may not “like” that “NBC” requirement, but it’s there for a reason, it applies to all of us, and if you can’t abide it, have it amended and removed. Don’t ignore law because you dislike it. You see where that gets us.

Saltyron on August 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM

As opposed to the constant embarrassment you prove to be to this site? Lolz!

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Embarrassment for her, or us?

The likes for her, and stoner and the other goofy ones are nominally on our side.

At least the idiots like verbulance are embarrassments for the other side. Considering the lack of talent, or common sense, on the other side, maybe those idiots aren’t embarrassments for their side.

cozmo on August 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM

You keep avoiding the questio: Why did d’ohbama claim to be “born in Kenya” for the publicity blurb?
And, if it was, indeed, just a mistake by his agent, why didn’t d’ohbama correct that mistake? Did he think that it made him seem moe “authentic”, believable or “exotic” to have been “born in Kenya”? If so, wouldn’t that make him complicit in a lie (iow, a liar) for financial gain? i.e.: A fraudster.

Are you saying that we selected a liar…a fraud…as pResident?

Solaratov on August 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM

You assume that it matters one iota to leftists if the president lies. It matters only if s/he is a R, duh.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM

One does not have their academic, medical, and legal records SEALED unless they have something to hide.

GAlpha10 on August 19, 2013 at 11:21 AM

I hate to say it, but Obama didn’t need to have his academic, medical, and legal records specially “SEALED.” Everybody’s academic, medical, and legal records are not supposed to be open to the public to look at.

The problem is that some people’s records get released when they shouldn’t be. Take Rick Perry, whose college transcript got leaked during the last campaign, even though the leaked copy even had a stamp on it saying it should not be released without the student’s authorization. Whoever leaked Perry’s transcript broke the law. But the people who aren’t leaking Obama’s academic, medical, and legal records are complying with the law — maybe due to bias in favor of Obama, but still in compliance with law.

J.S.K. on August 19, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Yes, one of the extra 7 states right?

Nutstuyu on August 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Joke-lahoma?

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Why didn’t he have a pal that has PDF skills put one together, like Obama did?

Moesart on August 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM

This should be considered as absolute proof of in the tank media bias for Obama. This place of birth issue has been over worked to the point of being just DUMB. Yet the issues of Obama citizenship continues to go unresolved. I do not mean to say anything about his place of birth. His mother was a US citizen he was born a US citizen. End of story. What should be question is his time in Indonesia. Did he give up his citizenship?

The purpose of this kind of reporting is not to determine eligibility but sole to eliminate an opponent. This is irresponsible journalism.

Here is a what if for you. Even if Cruz’s mother was not a US citizen but was pregnant and boarded a US airlines plane and gave birth over Cuban air space. He would still be a US citizen because the plane is considered US territory once it is in the air.

jpcpt03 on August 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Joke-lahoma?

verbaluce on August 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Whichever one has Austrian as its official language.

Nutstuyu on August 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM

cozmo on August 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Fair enough. Good point. ; )

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Heck – I just read the English and Canadian citizenship laws (on Wikipedia) and I might actually have citizenship, or be able to claim citizenship, in both (despite the fact that I’ve never set foot in either country). US should not allow any US citizens to concurrently be an foreign citizen. They should make any US citizen choose.

besser tot als rot on August 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Can anyone see Reince Priebus explaining to the low-info on Meet the Press that Rafael Cruz (that’s what he’ll be called by 2016 by the Left) does have a Canadian birth certificate but, constitutionally-speaking (I guess?) could be POTUS?

Just how badly do we want to lose this election?

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Low-info voters are not that into the Sunday morning political talk shows.

The only low-information voters who watch “Meet the Press” are the people who used to be high-information voters until they started watching “Meet the Press.”

J.S.K. on August 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Here is how Cruz or any candidate should run “On the first day of my presidency I will nullify, with the stroke of this pen, all the directives obama signed by executive order”.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM

US should not allow any US citizens to concurrently be an foreign citizen. They should make any US citizen choose.

besser tot als rot on August 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM

If anything, the US relazed that part of the law in the last few years. It’ll only move toward global citizenship, apace.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:15 PM

You birthers really are legitimately insane.

First you help Obama get reelected with this crap now your only focus is destroying conservative candidates.

There are “Jindal birthers”, “Cruz birthers”, etc…

Just stop.

tetriskid on August 19, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Here is how Cruz or any candidate should run “On the first day of my presidency I will nullify, with the stroke of this pen, all the directives obama signed by executive order”.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Better be careful. They just need to find one good executive order and run with that. Take, say, Exec. Order 13566, which blocked any funds of Muammar Qaddafi’s family held in the U.S.

Cruz: “On the first day of my presidency I will nullify, with the stroke of this pen, all the directives Obama signed by executive order.”
Reaction: “Ted Cruz promised today to release funds held by former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s family!”

And trust me, they will be able to find other executive orders that could be used to demagogue anyone who says they will repeal all of Obama’s executive orders.

J.S.K. on August 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM

relaxed

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Old style would be sweet.

Bmore on August 19, 2013 at 12:18 PM

J.S.K. on August 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Meh…all peanuts compared to the megathuggery he is. A good candidate will overcome the poodle-yapping.

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4