The Rabbi
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2009
- 67,733
- 7,923
There is no legal difference. There is no "natural law" definition of citizen. Citizenship is an artificial construct anyway.Cruz is a citizen by statute made by positive law. He is not a natural born Citizen due to natural law, the founders original intent. There is a difference.No one cares what "should" be the case. What is the case is that Cruz is a natural born citizen. So was George Romney and Barry Goldwater. And a letter from Washington has exactly the same legal authority as a letter from Jimmy Carter.I disagree. The natural born citizen clause should be left intact. Both parents should be U.S. citizens ensuring sole allegiance. No foreign influences. Read the letter to George Washington (when he was framing the qualifications to be president) by his good friend John Jay (the first Supreme Court Justice) suggesting that Alexander Hamilton's presidential draft be changed from just 'Citizen' to be president to 'natural-born Citizen' to avoid foreign influences. Here is the original presidential clause by Alexander Hamilton:Read the Federalist Papers and you will get a clear understanding of what their intent was, born of citizen parents. The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep John Bingham, when debating to congress on the house floor defined a natural born Citizen as a person born within the sole jurisdiction of the United States of parents owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereigty. His definition was met without any opposition.The Founding Fathers did not define who is a natural born citizen.
Shhh. That would mean that Obama would be ineligible. I suggest that the matters are already done to death. Is there going to be a new Birther movement among Dems aimed at Cruz?? You betcha!!! And it will get derision as it deserves. Besides, I consider it a stupid rule anyway. The Presidency should be open to ALL citizens and the Will of the People!!
Greg
![]()
![]()
The print version:
![]()