Can Ted Cruz run for President?

Here is where you get it wrong. The second part that you think supports your case, actually supports my case. I leave it out only because it does not apply to specific class of "natural-born citizenship", but instead to citizenship in general. What today's statutes refer to as "citizens at birth".

You are correct in that Wong Kim Ark eventually decided on the "doubts" related to people being born on US soil to foreign parents as being citizens. But people with foreign parents being ruled as "citizens" is not the same as being ruled as "natural-born citizens". Indeed, Minor v Hapersett stated that it was "never doubted" that natural-born citizens were those born on US soil to citizen parents.

So again, the "never a doubt" part of Minor v Happersett applies to "natural-born citizens" being born on US soil to citizen parents. The doubtful parts were whether or not people born on US soil to foreign parents were citizens. This was the part that Wong Kim Ark resolved. So the mistake you and others are continually making is trying expand Wong Kim Ark as applying to "natural born", when instead, it only applies to general "citizenship".

It is why I keep asking where "natural-born" is discussed in Wong Kim Ark, or in the citizen statutes, and why I keep getting no response from you and the others. It is because you can't respond to it, because "natural-born" is nowhere a part of Wong Kim Ark or the citizen statutes.

 

If you are born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen from Birth.

- - - Updated - - -

....................................

 

This has been refuted. Minor is completely irrelevant and is not precedent, which is why it has never been cited in any subsequent case regarding citizenship, while Wong Kim ark specifically has regarding natural born citizen.

You are 100% incorrect

 

Have you ever actually read Wong Kim Ark- or just searched by NBC?

Wong Kim Ark actually has a long discussion on the origins of natural born citizen- and I am not going to try to re-state this since many legal authorities have already done so

Here is the discussion from Ankeny v Daniels

Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.Id. at 167-168.

Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (189, the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”Id. at 654, 18S. Ct. at 459.They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States12 is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (188).

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟„obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection.Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim,„Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions,were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as„Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere.Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a,128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doev. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . .said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matte whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of anypart of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.‟ Cockb. Nat. 7. Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:“ British subject ’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown.„Permanent‟ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of aBritish subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is withinthe British dominions, owes „temporary‟ allegiance to the crown. „ Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a Britishsubject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘ Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject . This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.‟The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born ina part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person‟s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.‟ „(2) Any person whose father (being analien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign stateis (though born within the British dominions) an alien.‟ And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man‟s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.‟Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was anatural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in theUnited States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13 Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v.Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, andowing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis‟s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393(1856):The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language,„a natural - born citizen.‟ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country a tthe time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.)at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained herewith the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since the Revolution.Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted).

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14Id. at705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was]a natural- born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural- born citizens.”15


You don't have to believe that the Appellate Court Judges in Indiana are wrong.

But your opinion is irrelevant.

Because the Appellate Court Judges decision in Indiana reflects what we all believe, therefore your 'unusual' opinion as to who is a natural born citizen is both practically and legally irrelevant.

 

If he's lucky....

 

<eyeroll>more lib shallowness

 

Careful of what you wish for,liberal....He's everyting Owebama wasn't

 

Half Latino?
White?
A charismatic first term Senator with no administration experience(oh wait.....)

 

Ahh yes,leave it to the liberal to bring up race

He clerked for the supreme court,the first hispanic to do so,he was a successful lawyer,was the solicitor general of the state Of Texas,was an adjuct professor at the University of Texas school of law

 

You were the one looking for differences- and turns out one of the differences that you were thinking of was race

He clerked for the supreme court,the first hispanic to do so

Obama was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review- which would be relevant- if race was relevant.

Frankly I have no real objection to Cruz's experience, but to pretend that his experience is vastly different from the experience that President Obama had when he ran for President the first time is just silly.

Both were trained as lawyers. Both are/were first term Senators who were charismatic speakers who have accomplished very little in the way of legislative actions, and neither of them have had any executive(i.e. Governor or Mayor) experience.

I am not claiming that Cruz is not eligible(he is) and I am not claiming that he is nit as professionally qualified as Obama was(He is).

But I don't think being the Solicitor General of Texas makes Cruz everything that Obama was not.

 

I gave it to you right from his bio,,,,I never mentioned race till YOU did

And there's more that makes him everything Obama isn't

 

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

 

But you didn't have any problem mentioning race- did you? Apparently its only a liberal thing when I point out the obvious disimilarities between Obama and Cruz.

Their professional qualifications as first term Senators are more similar than different.

 

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

 

So you think that Ted Cruz could if he is lucky get a talk show deal?

 

Why would I have...it's in his BIO,not an off the cuff comment like YOU made.....


And Obama wasn't a senator long enough to get experience when like he's done all his life,he moved on to the next thing.....

- - - Updated - - -

*eyeroll* No.

 

Please. Jon Stewart taking off on the stupidity and hypocrisy of birtherism is not "acting like a birther." Steve Colbert pretending to be a "birther" to demonstrate their idiocy is not "acting like a birther.

These people and their allies ("get the government out of my Medicare" anyone?) have done nothing but harm us for the last 6 years.

Personally i will take enormous pleasure at watching their collective heads explode when their idiocy and hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

You want to call it "acting like a birther?" I call it the flip side of the coin. There is no rational discussion to be had with them so i might as well rub their noses in it.

 

sorry, the "other" was not a US national but an immigrant from Castro's Cuba.

so.....

sorry, not qualified.

1. She was not in the Us during the precious year and
2. He was not a US national.

so.....dream on.

 

Nope. Cruz qualifies. He was born to a citizen parent who met the one year requirement.

Please stop making birther arguments

 

And Cruz has been a Senator how long? 10 months?

How long will Cruz have been Senator if he runs for President in 2016? 3 years?

How long was Obama Senator before he became President? Senator 2005-2008- oh wait 3 years.

Again- so tell me the big differences between a charismatic first term senator running for President and a charismatic first term senator running for President- I mean other than one of them being the 'first hispanic Supreme Court lawclerk"?

 

and?

got "proof?"

I've seen neither her "birth certificate" nor any travel records that demonstrate compliance.

So.....

 

Easy,owebama never finishes anything....I'll be genuinely surprised if he finishes his second term

 

what? no way!

I require an endless stream of proof and no matter how much is provided it is fraudulent and not enough.

gooses and ganders

 

Dated a month after his birth on Dec. 22, 1970, it shows that Rafael Edward Cruz was born to Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, a &#8220;geophysical consultant&#8221; born in Matanzas, Cuba, and the former Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, born in Wilmington, Del.

Her status made the baby a U.S. citizen at birth. For that, U.S. law required at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen who had lived for at least a decade in the United States.

She registered his birth with the U.S. consulate, Frazier said, and the future senator received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

 

Stop acting like a birther. You look like an idiot