alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[dcraelin]

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

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.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

a so-called "Constitutional Conservative" should know that the section of the Constitution dealing with presidential eligibility is not the same one as quoted above which gives the Congress power to make rules on naturalization.

 

[dcraelin]

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

ok, looked it up and Wong uses, according to my count, "natural-born citizen" 7 times in the majority opinion, NOT the 14 times you said. And I dont understand why the Indiana opinion would say something different which is another point against that case.

It also says quote
"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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

note the "of parents who were its citizens" which would tend to support keys.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

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.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

a so-called "Constitutional Conservative" should know that the section of the Constitution dealing with presidential eligibility is not the same one as quoted above which gives the Congress power to make rules on naturalization.

Constitution of the United States | The Constitution of the United States of America – U.S. Constitution

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

You're having a problem with . . . what, precisely, about my citation?

Let me explain the logic chain of the post, since you seem to have gotten lost in all those words.

Article 2 establishes the requirements for Presidential eligibility, which has been established and noted. It is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 which gives Congress the power to pass laws (known as the US Code) which define the term "natural-born citizen" in that eligibility through the "uniform Rule of Naturalization", ie. how is citizenship conveyed.

No one ever said the two Constitutional Articles were the same.

 

[Syriusly]

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

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.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

 

[Syriusly]

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

 

[washamericom]

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

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.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

why then is your 1 citizen parent theory supposed hold water ??

 

[washamericom]

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

sy i get the feeling you think America belongs to hawaii or indiana, instead of the other way around.

 

[Syriusly]

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

sy i get the feeling you think America belongs to hawaii or indiana, instead of the other way around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

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.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

 

[Faun]

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

Sadly, your reading comprehension issues persist.

 

[rdean]

So Easy- when the Right calls Obama foreign- even though he was born in Hawaii- and does not call Cruz foreign- what other reason is it other than skin color?

Feel free to provide an alternative explanation.

Generalize much?

'When the 'RIGHT' calls Obama foreign...'
- I am afraid you are going to have to be far more specific than that, for as you know it all depends on exactly WHO you are talking about. Case in point, 'Birther' Grayson - who we have established as a nut - claims Cruz is 'foreign'.

There are nuts on both sides of the proverbial aisle, but Liberals like yourself like to generalize, demonizing 'the entire right' based on the comments of a few....which is why you can never really be taken seriously...or at least ONE of the reasons.

Shock Poll: Only 29% Of Republicans Said Obama Was Born In USA; 40% Said Cruz Born In USA - Birther Report

Don't be a fucking shithead, it's embarrassing.

 

[Vigilante]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

 

[Faun]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

 

[Vigilante]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

 

[rdean]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

Lying asswipes such as yourself hate video. It shows how disgusting your kind is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

Sadly, your reading comprehension issues persist.

So basically, I've never said it, and the law doesn't say it, but you want to take on a vague, supercilious tone and pretend otherwise.

 

[Faun]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

Sadly, you are too fucking demented.

Here's an example of a brain-dead conservative you're idiotically calling a Republican: Where_r_my_Keys

 

[Vigilante]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

Lying asswipes such as yourself hate video. It shows how disgusting your kind is.

Video SHOT and EDITED by a GRAYSON STAFFER!!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

And you scum complain about editied Planned Parenthood video's!

 

[Syriusly]

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

When did i say you did?

There are various strains of Birtherism- but other than Grayson- virtually everyone who is claiming that Obama or Cruz or Rubio is not a natural born citizen- is a Conservative minion of WND.

Like Stevie the racist, like Keys the Delusional.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(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.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

LOL- what I find amusing about your post is that idiots proclaiming that natural born citizens must have two American citizens as parents have been virtually all Conservatives.

Grayson is a notable exception.

Birtherism has been a den of Conservatives since 2009- nary a Liberal in site- the few liberals in 2008 quickly disappeared.

When did I ever say that natural-born citizens have to have two citizen parents?

When did i say you did?

There are various strains of Birtherism- but other than Grayson- virtually everyone who is claiming that Obama or Cruz or Rubio is not a natural born citizen- is a Conservative minion of WND.

Like Stevie the racist, like Keys the Delusional.

I didn't say you did, you five-second-memory retard. I was originally addressing DCraelin, who DID bring it up. No one told you to jump in and answer the question.

Try to fucking keep up, dipshit.