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.
It is clear from his emphasis that John Jay is talking about a person who is born a citizen of the United States.
Foreigner. He specifically intended to exclude foreigners.
US-born dual citizens are born foreigners as well as US citizens, as are some (but possibly not all) who are born outside the US to two US citizen parents. Depends on the jus soli citizenship laws of the country in which the birth took place.
Again... this is ALL related to the fact that anyone born with a citizenship other than US citizenship is legally compromised. They are obligated under well-established centuries old international law to obey the laws of any foreign country of which they're a citizen of by birth (via jus soli, jus sanguinis, or both). The US State Department warns of that factto this day...
Quote:
"Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.
"...The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."
What happens when a foreign country similarly impresses a born dual citizen POTUS into service for them, as they most certainly would have the legal right to do under international law?
That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid with the 'natural born citizen' requirement. They wanted POTUS to have no split, dual, or otherwise compromised/competing allegiance from birth to prevent that possibility.
Pretty simple, really. And extremely reasonable to require a POTUS and the Commander in Chief of our military to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. from birth, with no competing/conflicting foreign claims on his/her allegiance or service.
To be clear: the problem is conflicting/competing allegiance at birth via dual (or more) citizenship, and a foreign country's valid legal right according to international law to enforce its laws upon its own citizens/subjects, worldwide.
And renouncing a citizenship with which one is born is iffy. In times of war or conflict, that renunciation may not be recognized. That's exactly what happened in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to U.S. citizen men born in the U.S. to parents (fathers, given that historical era) who had been born British subjects before the U.S. gained independence. Even though those U.S.-born men had never stepped foot in England and had been U.S. citizens all their lives, the UK had the legal right under international law to impress them into service in the British Royal Navy because they were the progeny of those who had been born British subjects, and therefore were also British subjects themselves under British law.
Come on people... stop the knee-jerk emotional reactions and use critical thinking skills.
EXACTLY. To rule on this case, a court would have to define "natural born citizen" and to do so, they would have to look back to the 1790 Naturalization Act since it is the ONLY place where the Founders defined that term.
Then they would have to look at the fact that that definition was REPEALED by the same Founding Fathers very shortly later, was submitted as a bill in 2004, and was STILL rejected even in contemporary times.
No, it did not state that. It only stated that it wasn't submitted to the Convention. That's true. The version submitted to the Convention was the "natural born citizen" requirement.
Alexander Hamilton was a member of the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia. His major "contribution" to the deliberations was June 18th, 1787, when he rose to give a speech about his idea for the structure of the government (read here). His speech was so poorly received by the other delegates that Hamilton was accused of being a closet monarchist. His speech also didn't include any reference to a citizenship requirement for the office of President.
Hamilton left the convention in Philadelphia to attend to business in New York, and only returned at the end of the Convention - well after the Committee of Detail* introduced its draft of the proposed Constitution on August 6. Since the original Committee of Detail draft contained no mention of a requirement of citizenship, and since there is no record of the inclusion of the phrase 'natural born citizen' in any notes taken at the convention, it is apparent that the phrase was inserted without debate or comment, and probably taken from John Jay's letter. To suggest that Hamilton's document somehow was presented to either the Committee of Detail or the Convention in general is at best wishful thinking.
...
* I have been using the term 'Committee of Eleven' when in fact it was the Committee of Detail which produced the first draft of the Constitution.
How could he have not known he was born in Canada? There are several times one must present their birth certificate for various purposes. His was issued in Canada.
I never said he didn't know he was BORN in Canada. The issue has to do with his citizenship. The fact is, neither he, nor his parents were aware that CA citizenship was conferred upon him at birth and there were no indicators throughout his life IN THE US, that he was anything OTHER THAN A US CITIZEN, until the Dallas Morning News published an article in 8/13 stating that Cruz had citizenship in CA.
It is clear from his emphasis that John Jay is talking about a person who is born a citizen of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Foreigner. He specifically intended to exclude foreigners.
John Jay specifically intended to limit it to people born as citizens of the United States. That's why he emphasized the word born. He wanted to exclude the people who were not born as citizens of the United States.
Need I remind you, one more time, that your own acknowledged authority, the State Department, recognizes Ted Cruz as a born citizen of the United States?
Quote:
US-born dual citizens are born foreigners as well as US citizens, as are some (but possibly not all) who are born outside the US to two US citizen parents. Depends on the jus soli citizenship laws of the country in which the birth took place.
Again... this is ALL related to the fact that anyone born with a citizenship other than US citizenship is legally compromised. They are obligated under well-established centuries old international law to obey the laws of any foreign country of which they're a citizen of by birth (via jus soli, jus sanguinis, or both). The US State Department warns of that factto this day...
What happens when a foreign country similarly impresses a born dual citizen POTUS into service for them, as they most certainly would have the legal right to do under international law?
That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid with the 'natural born citizen' requirement. They wanted POTUS to have no split, dual, or otherwise compromised/competing allegiance from birth to prevent that possibility.
Pretty simple, really. And extremely reasonable to require a POTUS and the Commander in Chief of our military to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. from birth, with no competing/conflicting foreign claims on his/her allegiance or service.
To be clear: the problem is conflicting/competing allegiance at birth via dual (or more) citizenship, and a foreign country's valid legal right according to international law to enforce its laws upon its own citizens/subjects, worldwide.
And renouncing a citizenship with which one is born is iffy. In times of war or conflict, that renunciation may not be recognized. That's exactly what happened in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to U.S. citizen men born in the U.S. to parents (fathers, given that historical era) who had been born British subjects before the U.S. gained independence. Even though those U.S.-born men had never stepped foot in England and had been U.S. citizens all their lives, the UK had the legal right under international law to impress them into service in the British Royal Navy because they were the progeny of those who had been born British subjects, and therefore were also British subjects themselves under British law.
Frankly, this is the same sort of logic that said that John F Kennedy couldn't be president because he owed his allegiance to a foreign pope.
1. Cruz got money from Citi & Goldman Sachs for his senate run (only came out now)
2. Cruz did not show up for the vote on Audit the Fed
Cruzbots will not see the connection between 1 and 2.
Do you?
1. Cruz did not "get money from Citi & Goldman Sachs for his senate run. He took low interest loans against existing accounts which were reported and publicly available, but were not properly filed with the FEC.
2. Cruz had an existing campaign commitment on the day the Audit the Fed bill (which HE COAUTHORED) vote was taken. Upon learning that the vote count was 8 short of being passed, Cruz determined that he would not break his previous commitment to the people attending the campaign event to vote on the bill where his vote would not change the outcome. He has stated that he looks forward to signing the Audit the Fed bill (which HE COAUTHORED) into law as the next President.
Then they would have to look at the fact that that definition was REPEALED by the same Founding Fathers very shortly later, was submitted as a bill in 2004, and was STILL rejected even in contemporary times.
The DEFINITION was NOT REPEALED. The ACT with the definition was superseded by a later iteration of the ACT.
The Definition was not changed in the superseding Act, THEREFORE, the DEFINITION REMAINS VALID!
"Should Cruz become the Republican nominee, Grayson has promised to challenge Cruz's candidacy -- and Grayson believes Cruz hasn't exactly been honest with voters when he tells them the law is "simple and straightforward." "All that Cruz has done is wave his hands in the air and claimed that it's settled law when it's not," Grayson told The Huffington Post on Friday. Grayson -- who, like Cruz, is a Harvard Law graduate -- said he would sue election officials if they certified Cruz's eligibility, and he thinks it's a legitimate question whether Cruz is a natural born citizen."
Could Congress have cleared this up years ago/decades ago simply by writing a law that defines natural born citizen better? After McCain lost should he have gone back to the Senate and written that bill?
Awesome, that will give him something to do other than beat on his wife!
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.
and use critical thinking skills. 
