For Those Who Claim Cruz Is Not A Citizen

[OKTexas]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

That Law Review propaganda article has been recently debunked by constitutional attorneys. It's misleading to say the least.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

That Law Review propaganda article has been recently debunked by constitutional attorneys. It's misleading to say the least.

Yep, saw that, his article was BS on it's face. Now try actually reading the article and the references as I suggested.

 

[S.J.]

In the end it won't matter. The only place he's doing well is in Iowa and his numbers there are falling as well. He's not gonna get the nomination. All this issue will do is eliminate him from being picked by Trump for VP. He needs to put it behind him of he wants the number two slot.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I agree that Ted Cruz is completely eligible to be President, but I can't help but notice that you never bothered to post thsee arguments when Obama's citizenship was being attacked on exactly the same lines...

 

[Indofred]

Are US politics about who you like, or who you hate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

steve won't apply the standards equally.

Obama and Cruz are equally eligible for the presidency judged by the standards.

 

[The Rabbi]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

It doesnt matter. It's like a conspiracy theory where every piece of evidence that supports the thesis is actually proof of a bigger conspiracy. The idiot deniers will never accept the very obvious facts.

 

[amrchaos]

Cruz is an American Canuck

Obama is an American Keynuck(??)

 

[OKTexas]

I agree that Ted Cruz is completely eligible to be President, but I can't help but notice that you never bothered to post thsee arguments when Obama's citizenship was being attacked on exactly the same lines...

Actually I just learned of the articles existence yesterday, when I spoke to a lady at my congressmans office.

 

[Skylar]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

You're confused. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cruz isn't a citizen. The debate is if he is a natural born citizen.

If you're an originalist, natural born citizen would mean whatever the founders believed it meant at the time the constitution was ratified.

If you're a 'living document' interpretator, then natural born citizen can glean its meaning from events and definitions that came after the constitution was ratified.

Cruz is an originalist.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

You're confused. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cruz isn't a citizen. The debate is if he is a natural born citizen.

If you're an originalist, natural born citizen would mean whatever the founders believed it meant at the time the constitution was ratified.

If you're a 'living document' interpretator, then natural born citizen can glean its meaning from events and definitions that came after the constitution was ratified.

Cruz is an originalist.

Doesn't matter if Cruz is an originalist or not, this thread is about what makes a natural born citizen. Of course if you want to go by what many of the founders believed, and use their standards, citizenship can be denied because of race. Constitutionally as stated in the article, there are only two types of citizens mentioned, people born a citizen and people naturalized as citizens, there is no third category.

 

[Skylar]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

You're confused. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cruz isn't a citizen. The debate is if he is a natural born citizen.

If you're an originalist, natural born citizen would mean whatever the founders believed it meant at the time the constitution was ratified.

If you're a 'living document' interpretator, then natural born citizen can glean its meaning from events and definitions that came after the constitution was ratified.

Cruz is an originalist.

Doesn't matter if Cruz is an originalist or not, this thread is about what make a natural born citizen.

And the answer to that question is based on if you're using an originalist or living document intepretation of the constitution. By the originalist interpretations, Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. By living document standards, he is.

Given that Cruz is an originalist, would it not be reasonable to apply his own constitutional standards to himself?

Of course if you want to go by what many of the founders believed, and use their standards, citizenship can be denied because of race. Constitutionally as stated in the article, there are only two types of citizens mentioned, people born a citizen and people naturalized as citizens, there is no third category.

So you're arguing against an originalist definition of natural born citizen? That what the founders considered a natural born citizen when they wrote the constitution is irrelevant to the meaning of the word today.

Very 'living document' of you. I'll hold you to the 'living document' standard in the future.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

You're confused. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cruz isn't a citizen. The debate is if he is a natural born citizen.

If you're an originalist, natural born citizen would mean whatever the founders believed it meant at the time the constitution was ratified.

If you're a 'living document' interpretator, then natural born citizen can glean its meaning from events and definitions that came after the constitution was ratified.

Cruz is an originalist.

Doesn't matter if Cruz is an originalist or not, this thread is about what make a natural born citizen.

And the answer to that question is based on if you're using an originalist or living document intepretation of the constitution. By the originalist interpretations, Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. By living document standards, he is.

Given that Cruz is an originalist, would it not be reasonable to apply his own constitutional standards to himself?

Of course if you want to go by what many of the founders believed, and use their standards, citizenship can be denied because of race. Constitutionally as stated in the article, there are only two types of citizens mentioned, people born a citizen and people naturalized as citizens, there is no third category.

So you're arguing against an originalist definition of natural born citizen? That what the founders considered a natural born citizen when they wrote the constitution is irrelevant to the meaning of the word today.

Very 'living document' of you. I'll hold you to the 'living document' standard in the future.

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

You on the other hand, want to play semantics games. Enjoy.

 

[Skylar]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

You're confused. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cruz isn't a citizen. The debate is if he is a natural born citizen.

If you're an originalist, natural born citizen would mean whatever the founders believed it meant at the time the constitution was ratified.

If you're a 'living document' interpretator, then natural born citizen can glean its meaning from events and definitions that came after the constitution was ratified.

Cruz is an originalist.

Doesn't matter if Cruz is an originalist or not, this thread is about what make a natural born citizen.

And the answer to that question is based on if you're using an originalist or living document intepretation of the constitution. By the originalist interpretations, Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. By living document standards, he is.

Given that Cruz is an originalist, would it not be reasonable to apply his own constitutional standards to himself?

Of course if you want to go by what many of the founders believed, and use their standards, citizenship can be denied because of race. Constitutionally as stated in the article, there are only two types of citizens mentioned, people born a citizen and people naturalized as citizens, there is no third category.

So you're arguing against an originalist definition of natural born citizen? That what the founders considered a natural born citizen when they wrote the constitution is irrelevant to the meaning of the word today.

Very 'living document' of you. I'll hold you to the 'living document' standard in the future.

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

The old common law standard is place of birth. As affirmed by the court in Wong Kim Ark. With James Madison affirming that allegiance followed place of birth. And citizenship embodied by the constitution only followed place of birth.

Citizenship by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But authorized by statute that was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified.

You on the other hand, want to play semantics games. Enjoy.

I'm simply using the actual standards. Not those you imagine.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read this article and the included references. You might learn something, I did.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

1×​

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Read more at link.

​

You're confused. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cruz isn't a citizen. The debate is if he is a natural born citizen.

If you're an originalist, natural born citizen would mean whatever the founders believed it meant at the time the constitution was ratified.

If you're a 'living document' interpretator, then natural born citizen can glean its meaning from events and definitions that came after the constitution was ratified.

Cruz is an originalist.

Doesn't matter if Cruz is an originalist or not, this thread is about what make a natural born citizen.

And the answer to that question is based on if you're using an originalist or living document intepretation of the constitution. By the originalist interpretations, Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. By living document standards, he is.

Given that Cruz is an originalist, would it not be reasonable to apply his own constitutional standards to himself?

Of course if you want to go by what many of the founders believed, and use their standards, citizenship can be denied because of race. Constitutionally as stated in the article, there are only two types of citizens mentioned, people born a citizen and people naturalized as citizens, there is no third category.

So you're arguing against an originalist definition of natural born citizen? That what the founders considered a natural born citizen when they wrote the constitution is irrelevant to the meaning of the word today.

Very 'living document' of you. I'll hold you to the 'living document' standard in the future.

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

The old common law standard is place of birth. As affirmed by the court in Wong Kim Ark. With James Madison affirming that allegiance followed place of birth. And citizenship embodied by the constitution only followed place of birth.

Citizenship by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But authorized by statute that was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified.

You on the other hand, want to play semantics games. Enjoy.

I'm simply using the actual standards. Not those you imagine.

This is the article little stevie was talking about. My bold

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Read more at Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen - Birther Report

 

[Wilbur Right]

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

From what I have read, that was a common interpratation for some time.
there was ALWAYS an (s) on parents. As in two Ameican parents.

At a certain point even that changed to just ONE American parent.

I guess when you got the problem of trying to find a quality candidate to run, the Repubs want to search the world to see whos out there.

Remember when the Repubs wanted Schwartzanager?

But I dont believe ted will make it. Soon Dems will be calling him by his real name; Rafael. that wont work.

 

[Skylar]

You're confused. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cruz isn't a citizen. The debate is if he is a natural born citizen.

If you're an originalist, natural born citizen would mean whatever the founders believed it meant at the time the constitution was ratified.

If you're a 'living document' interpretator, then natural born citizen can glean its meaning from events and definitions that came after the constitution was ratified.

Cruz is an originalist.

Doesn't matter if Cruz is an originalist or not, this thread is about what make a natural born citizen.

And the answer to that question is based on if you're using an originalist or living document intepretation of the constitution. By the originalist interpretations, Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. By living document standards, he is.

Given that Cruz is an originalist, would it not be reasonable to apply his own constitutional standards to himself?

Of course if you want to go by what many of the founders believed, and use their standards, citizenship can be denied because of race. Constitutionally as stated in the article, there are only two types of citizens mentioned, people born a citizen and people naturalized as citizens, there is no third category.

So you're arguing against an originalist definition of natural born citizen? That what the founders considered a natural born citizen when they wrote the constitution is irrelevant to the meaning of the word today.

Very 'living document' of you. I'll hold you to the 'living document' standard in the future.

Actually, as I've stated before, I would prefer the court apply the old common law standards. No one is a natural born citizen unless they are born to two citizen parents.

The old common law standard is place of birth. As affirmed by the court in Wong Kim Ark. With James Madison affirming that allegiance followed place of birth. And citizenship embodied by the constitution only followed place of birth.

Citizenship by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But authorized by statute that was passed AFTER the constitution was ratified.

You on the other hand, want to play semantics games. Enjoy.

I'm simply using the actual standards. Not those you imagine.

This is the article little stevie was talking about. My bold

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Read more at Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen - Birther Report

Your standard was 'no one is natural born unless both their parents were citizens'. You made no mention of place of birth. Despite your own source affirming that natural born citizenship required birth inside the US. And Happersett doesn't even mention those born outside the US as 'natural born citizens', hypothetically or otherwise.

And since Cruz wasn't born in the US, nor were both of his parents US citizens.....by your own standard, he can't be natural born.

If not, why not?

 

[g5000]

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

Something which never penetrates the skulls of birfers after years of having it pounded into them.

 

[Siete]

Rafael is a Cuban spy infiltrating the country via Canada ...