To redeem myself for posting from Politifact, here is the Harvard Law Review article: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-t...l-born-citizen/ , and a Fox article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...-for-president/.

Frank, the first 9 presidents were born and living at the time the Constitution was written and were found eligible as they were citizens "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" as per Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution. The only exception was Martin Van Buren and he qualified under the natural born clause.

No one living today has that distinction and must come under the natural born clause as did Van Buren.

Barry Goldwater's father was a U.S. Citizen, as mentioned both McCain's parents were citizens, ditto with George Romney. Of all past presidential candidates only ONE had a non-citizen father - Obama. And now Cruz.

I must respectfully disagree that this issue has been debunked. Everything I have seen on debunking this issue comes from later immigration rulings such as 8 U.S. Code 1401 from 1952. Unfortunately that ruling only defined what is a citizen and did not change the definition of natural born. In fact all the debunkings equate natural born with mere citizenship when they are clearly different.

So I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #30

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #16

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #15

---

Gramma - why is he not constitutionally able to run?

---

Because he was not born under U.S. jurisdiction (i.e., the nation of Canada) and his father was not a U.S. Citizen.

Natural Born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was defined (and I was taught this in school) as a child of two citizens born within U.S. jurisdiction.

It was also defined again in 1866:

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

This is why he is not qualified. It does not matter that his mother was a citizen as his father was not. But even if you discount U.S. jurisdiction there is still the matter of the Father. Natural born derives from the citizenship of the Father, not just the mother.

Read more here from the federalist blog:

The Federalist Blog on Natural Born Citizen

I realize these definitions and meanings have been lost, but to me they are still very much relevant. Because the Constitution cannot be compromised or its meanings changed. Because then our republic is lost. Therefore I cannot support someone who I would otherwise agree with if I cannot trust them to safeguard the Constitution.

---

This is a load of shit that has been debunked over and over. Under this odd interpretation of the rules, the first 9 Presidents of the US were ineligible for the Presidency.

Anyone really think they set up the rules to disqualify them from the position? Anyone think Barry Goldwater was not eligible for being President? Juan McLame? George Romney?

McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

---

Is the term "natural born citizen" defined in the originating document, i.e. the Constitution?

If it's not defined, it's a term of common understanding and does not need to be defined.

Re: post #26. Another well said, this time CG. This particular thread has brought out some very quality comments with little or no personal attacks. Strong testimony to the classy Forum Rev has created here and the classy kind of posters it has attracted.

Kudos to all involved.

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #32

---

So I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

---

Mea culpa, CG, I meant your post #29.

Just for the record, the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 is exactly why 0 is NOT eligible - his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on him at the time of his birth, and (I think) that the idea of birthright citizenship was not an accepted principle.

But, none of this matters a whit if 0 is allowed to occupy the presidency. The mere fact of his being sworn in (twice) makes it de facto legitimate.

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #31

---

To redeem myself for posting from Politifact, here is the Harvard Law Review article: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-t...l-born-citizen/ , and a Fox article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...-for-president/.

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #34

---

Is the term "natural born citizen" defined in the originating document, i.e. the Constitution?

If it's not defined, it's a term of common understanding and does not need to be defined.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #36

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #32

---

So I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

---

If the 1952 Act and the Harvard Law article Sanguine linked to doesn't explain how this Natural Born language works, feel free to be with the other .5% of birthers voting for some Progressive lover like Jeb because of a newly found (since 2007) interpretation of this law.

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833). The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.

Viva La Jeb Bush!!!!!

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #40

---

...

It used to be a term of common understanding. Not so much anymore. Nowadays it is taught that natural born is the same as naturalization.

But that has not always been so. In fact in my Senior year of High School Government class we were taught that natural born means born under U.S. Jurisdiction to two citizen parents and that it derives primarily from the citizenship off the father. We were also taught that natural birth is distinct from citizenship derived by immigration or naturalization.

---

And, this is a great discussion and a very important one.

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #42

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #40

---

...

It used to be a term of common understanding. Not so much anymore. Nowadays it is taught that natural born is the same as naturalization.

But that has not always been so. In fact in my Senior year of High School Government class we were taught that natural born means born under U.S. Jurisdiction to two citizen parents and that it derives primarily from the citizenship off the father. We were also taught that natural birth is distinct from citizenship derived by immigration or naturalization.

---

I may have not expressed myself very well. In contractual law, if something is not defined, it is either so common as to not require being defined within the agreement, and/or it isn't important enough to do so.

When 0 started his first presidential campaign and well into his first term, I agreed that there was no way he could be a NBC, but back then the facts of his origin were so murky, I thought that there was at least several issues with his eligibility. Now, I'm not sure his past is much less murky, but the definition of NBC has been argued to the point that I feel comfortable with the idea that Cruz is indeed a NBC.

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #41

---

I actually like Ted Cruz, but sadly he is not.

---