Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. I said the same thing about Obama being ineligible and why during the 2008 and 2012 elections.
The term “natural born citizen” had no existence or independent original meaning prior to the moment it was included in the Constitution the United States was founded. It was adapted by the framers [of the Constitution] from the well-known British concept of the “natural born subject” of the sovereign monarch. England had numerous and changing legal rules governing exactly who was and who was not a “natural born subject,” which can be used to muddy the waters. But one consistently applied rule is particularly germane: The offspring of the King were natural born subjects of the King regardless of where they were born, whether on English territory or not.
Read more: Articles: Yes, Ted Cruz is a Natural born Citizen
You can go down any rabbit hole you wish. Beginning in 1934, Congress began recognizing transfer of citizenship through the mother. [Naturalization Act of 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.]
Citizenship, yes. 'Citizen' does not equal 'natural born citizen.' We know that by the fact that the Constitution stipulates the requirement of citizen for members of Congress, but natural born citizen for POTUS.
And because we have the historical documentation from the Constitutional Convention, including Hamilton's draft and John Jay's letter to George Washington, we know that 'born a citizen' does not equal 'natural born citizen.'
What I've posted is a very straightforward, historically factual, and fully documented truth.
The term “natural born citizen” had no existence or independent original meaningprior to the moment it was included in the Constitution the United States was founded.
Exactly. That's why we have to look at the actual historical events and documents surrounding the inclusion of the term in the Constitutional requirements for POTUS.
The NBC clause as originally presented by Alexander Hamilton in June 1787:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
The NBC clause as adopted in September 1787, and as it exists to this day in the Constitution:
"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"
Note the difference: 'born a citizen' does not equal 'natural born Citizen.'
The term was specifically changed after John Jay's July 1787 letter to George Washington to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or having foreign claims on their allegiance and service since birth from becoming President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
[/font]Exactly. That's why we have to look at the actual historical events and documents surrounding the inclusion of the term in the Constitutional requirements for POTUS.
The NBC clause as originally presented by Alexander Hamilton in June 1787:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
The NBC clause as adopted in September 1787, and as it exists to this day in the Constitution:
"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"
Note the difference: 'born a citizen' does not equal 'natural born Citizen.'
The term was specifically changed after John Jay's July 1787 letter to George Washington to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or having foreign claims on their allegiance and service since birth from becoming President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
That's the very straightforward, historically factual, and fully documented truth.
Cruz is eligible.
The argument centers on "natural born" and parentage.
Quote:
The term “natural born citizen” had no existence or independent original meaning prior to the moment it was included in the Constitution the United States was founded. It was adapted by the framers [of the Constitution] from the well-known British concept of the “natural born subject” of the sovereign monarch. England had numerous and changing legal rules governing exactly who was and who was not a “natural born subject,” which can be used to muddy the waters. But one consistently applied rule is particularly germane: The offspring of the King were natural born subjects of the King regardless of where they were born, whether on English territory or not.
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. . .
Beginning in 1934, Congress began recognizing transfer of citizenship through the mother. [Naturalization Act of 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.]
It is as Ted Cruz has stated - straight forward.
Quote:
“I will say it is more than a little strange to see Donald relying on as authoritative a liberal, left-wing, judicial activist Harvard law professor who is a huge Hillary supporter,” Cruz said to reporters in New Hampshire following a campaign rally, apparently referencing Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe’s legal analysis. “It starts to make you think, ‘Gosh, why are some of Hillary’s strongest supporters backing Donald Trump?’”
You can try to insist that all you want. He isn't.
Instead of "opining" like the pundits, and supposed scholars, lawyers, and judges you're citing, I've posted the actual historical events and documents surrounding the inclusion of the term in the Constitutional requirements for POTUS.
That's the very straightforward, historically factual, and fully documented truth.
You can try to insist that all you want. He isn't.
Instead of "opining" like the pundits, and supposed scholars, lawyers, and judges you're citing, I've posted the actual historical events and documents surrounding the inclusion of the term in the Constitutional requirements for POTUS.
That's the very straightforward, historically factual, and fully documented truth.
Ted Cruz discusses the legalities, today, here - it is settled law:
Ted Cruz discusses the legalities, today, here - it is settled law
Settled law? Which law defines those who are 'natural born citizens?'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
like the pundits, and supposed scholars, lawyers, and judges you're citing, I've posted the actual historical events and documents surrounding the inclusion of the term in the Constitutional requirements for POTUS. 
