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

[dcraelin]

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.

No, you demented bitch. No one accused you of saying that. That's why your reading comprehension is at a pre-K level.

"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."

Now, as a response to my post, specifically saying "about your post", either your girlfriend DCraelin was saying I hold or am somehow responsible for this argument - which I have never made - or it is utterly fucking irrelevant to my post and has no place being mentioned in the response to it at all. In which case, it is completely appropriate for me to ask what the fuck it has to do with my post, since I have never said it and am in no way responsible for what a handful of "conservatives" I don't know do or say, even assuming I am willing to accept at face value DCraelin's assertion that "virtually all" the people making this argument are conservatives, which I don't.

And now that I've drawn YOUR pre-K level ass a fucking diagram of what all those little squiggles on the screen (we literate people call those "words", in case you were wondering) mean, you can stop protecting your asshole buddy and let him fight his own battles.

Because again, as I said, I wasn't responding to you or addressing my question to you, so at no point in time was your input actually required or desired.

Or, to put it in terms more appropriate to your reading comprehension level, piss off. I'm bored with you.

I think your getting people mixed up...it happens with the senility......we understand

 

[dcraelin]

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.

YOU implied they are the same, and seem still to be implying that Congress's ability to pass rules of naturalization can effect the presidential eligibility requirements.......

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

Suddenly, all the forum Communists are dedicated birthers...

There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

And exactly who are you speaking of- and please provide quotes?

Or is it just you trolling again?

By the way- all Birthers are idiots- especially Trump.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And exactly who are you speaking of- and please provide quotes?

Or is it just you trolling again?

By the way- all Birthers are idiots- especially Trump.

I was about to ask, "are ya fucking stupid?" but then remembered who I'm talking to.

What is the name of this thread, sploogy? Is it not about one of your fellow Communists pulling a birther routine on Cruz?

 

[Syriusly]

And exactly who are you speaking of- and please provide quotes?

Or is it just you trolling again?

By the way- all Birthers are idiots- especially Trump.

Speaking of hypocrites- they don't get much bigger than you

Suddenly, all the forum Communists are dedicated birthers...

There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

Who in this forum is calling Cruz ineligible and that you call a Communist?

There is no hypocrisy as blatant as Uncensored2008's hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrites- they don't get much bigger than you

You said:
Suddenly, all the forum Communists are dedicated birthers...

There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

Who in this forum is calling Cruz ineligible and that you call a Communist?

There is no hypocrisy as blatant as Uncensored2008's hypocrisy.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, you demented bitch. No one accused you of saying that. That's why your reading comprehension is at a pre-K level.

"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."

Now, as a response to my post, specifically saying "about your post", either your girlfriend DCraelin was saying I hold or am somehow responsible for this argument - which I have never made - or it is utterly fucking irrelevant to my post and has no place being mentioned in the response to it at all. In which case, it is completely appropriate for me to ask what the fuck it has to do with my post, since I have never said it and am in no way responsible for what a handful of "conservatives" I don't know do or say, even assuming I am willing to accept at face value DCraelin's assertion that "virtually all" the people making this argument are conservatives, which I don't.

And now that I've drawn YOUR pre-K level ass a fucking diagram of what all those little squiggles on the screen (we literate people call those "words", in case you were wondering) mean, you can stop protecting your asshole buddy and let him fight his own battles.

Because again, as I said, I wasn't responding to you or addressing my question to you, so at no point in time was your input actually required or desired.

Or, to put it in terms more appropriate to your reading comprehension level, piss off. I'm bored with you.

You remain the demented bitch you were when I first pointed that out. dcraelin was not the one who said, "about your post," Syriusly did. And he wasn't accusing you of saying Cruz must have both parents be U.S. citizens; and why would he since in that same post of yours, you said two U.S. citizen parents are not a requirement to be a natural born citizen. You're so fucking rightarded, you can't even figure out he was agreeing with you on that matter. What he took exception to was your idiotic claim that the left was responsible for any confusion given almost all of those insisting a natural born citizen must have two U.S. citizen parents are on the right.

And why would I care if you think my input is neither required nor desired? If you don't want to read my posts -- then don't read them. Who the fuck cares? skip past 'em ... put me on ignore ... leave the forum ... whatever. No one, certainly not I, gives a shit.

But you did prove both of my observations were dead on accurate....

1) your reading comprehension is at a pre-K level; and

2) you're a demented bitch.

Thanks for playin'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, you demented bitch. No one accused you of saying that. That's why your reading comprehension is at a pre-K level.

"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."

Now, as a response to my post, specifically saying "about your post", either your girlfriend DCraelin was saying I hold or am somehow responsible for this argument - which I have never made - or it is utterly fucking irrelevant to my post and has no place being mentioned in the response to it at all. In which case, it is completely appropriate for me to ask what the fuck it has to do with my post, since I have never said it and am in no way responsible for what a handful of "conservatives" I don't know do or say, even assuming I am willing to accept at face value DCraelin's assertion that "virtually all" the people making this argument are conservatives, which I don't.

And now that I've drawn YOUR pre-K level ass a fucking diagram of what all those little squiggles on the screen (we literate people call those "words", in case you were wondering) mean, you can stop protecting your asshole buddy and let him fight his own battles.

Because again, as I said, I wasn't responding to you or addressing my question to you, so at no point in time was your input actually required or desired.

Or, to put it in terms more appropriate to your reading comprehension level, piss off. I'm bored with you.

I think your getting people mixed up...it happens with the senility......we understand

Of all the leftist boilerplate arguments, I like "I'm rubber and you're glue" the best.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

YOU implied they are the same, and seem still to be implying that Congress's ability to pass rules of naturalization can effect the presidential eligibility requirements.......

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

 

[dcraelin]

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.

YOU implied they are the same, and seem still to be implying that Congress's ability to pass rules of naturalization can effect the presidential eligibility requirements.......

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

YOU implied they are the same, and seem still to be implying that Congress's ability to pass rules of naturalization can effect the presidential eligibility requirements.......

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

 

[dcraelin]

YOU implied they are the same, and seem still to be implying that Congress's ability to pass rules of naturalization can effect the presidential eligibility requirements.......

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

 

[HenryBHough]

Grayson, notorious "burfer".

Ya gotta love it when liberals trip on small dogs and think they've stepped on their own dick.

Delusions.....but fun ones!

 

[Faun]

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

 

[Skylar]

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

 

[Unkotare]

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

What are you confused about?

 

[Skylar]

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

What are you confused about?

Its a classification that's unique in US law....existing in no other circumstance for no other people, before or after. The classification has no legal relevance save to prevent Puerto Ricans, who are citizens at birth.....from being President.

 

[Unkotare]

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

What are you confused about?

Its a classification that's unique in US law....existing in no other circumstance for no other people, before or after. The classification has no legal relevance save to prevent Puerto Ricans, who are citizens at birth.....from being President.

The whole statehood thing.

 

[Skylar]

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

What are you confused about?

Its a classification that's unique in US law....existing in no other circumstance for no other people, before or after. The classification has no legal relevance save to prevent Puerto Ricans, who are citizens at birth.....from being President.

The whole statehood thing.

Yeah, but the Supreme Court long ago recognized that the United States consists of the States and territories as far as the constitution is concerned:

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

So those born in Puerto Rico are born in the United States. Yet Congress invented the bizarre 'Naturlized at birth' designation for those born in Puerto Rico.

Not those born in all territories. JUST Puerto Rico. That's why its so bizarre. Its an absolute legal outlier, existing no where else in the history of our law. And for no other region, state or territory.

 

[Syriusly]

Grayson, notorious "burfer".

Ya gotta love it when liberals trip on small dogs and think they've stepped on their own dick.

Delusions.....but fun ones!

Trump- notorious Birther- Henry is busy yanking on Trump's dick.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I implied nothing of the sort. You misunderstood, which is not my problem. I cited the specific section of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to make laws establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. I wasn't aware that you needed me to ALSO cite the specific section of the Constitution which lists the eligibility requirements for the Presidency in every single post on the topic. If you can't remember it from post to post, Memento, then you need to post it somewhere on your computer, because I'm not planning to drive myself crazy trying to anticipate every malfunction of your brain.

And no, I never said Congress can pass a law to "effect" [sic] the Presidential eligibility requirements. What they can do, and have done before, is affect whether or not a specific person MEETS those requirements or not.

What Im trying to get at is you seem to think that because Congress can pass rules of naturalization...that that can change who is and is not eligible for the presidency..........i.e. because Congress allows people who are born overseas to US parents to be US citizens, that this allows Cruz to run for president.......

IF this is not your position....then I misunderstood

But if it IS your position then you are wrong.

:sigh: What I'M trying to get at is it DOES change who is and is not eligible for the Presidency. What is complicated about the fact that Congress passes the laws which define what is and isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States. Who did you THINK defined it? Did you suppose it was some natural law of the universe, like mathematics or physics, handed down from God on high?

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

*sigh* I'll ask it again. If the rules regarding who is and is not a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen, in other words) are not determined by the United States government in the form of its legislative body, the US Congress, then exactly where do those rules come from? Are they some natural law of the universe, like physics, that simply exist? Are they decided by someone else?

It's all very well for you to sit here, adopting some faux-world weary attitude and say, "Yes, you can cite laws that specify what is and isn't a citizen, but that only refers to THIS type of citizen, not THAT type, and no, I can't prove it, but it just IS". It's another thing for you to explain your obstinate assertions.

We are done with you demanding proof over and over without offering any of your own. Your turn.