If Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada, He Cannot Be President: PERIOD

[Militants]

I fully answered the question.

You failed to answer mine.-- which is why use the term "natural citizen" if they only cared about the president bring a citizen"? I know what I believe. But the court will address the issue.

As for being born out of the country on a military base- a military base is American territory. That is why John McCain was eligible for the presidency despite being born in Panama.

That issue is an old one.

George Romney was born in Mexico and he was still eligible to run for President.

Actually, that was thoroughly debated at the time. Just as Cruz's eligibility is today.

After thoroughly debating it they determined he was indeed eligible. Just as Cruz is today.

Seems the left can't defend the their candidates so they must try and destroy the opposition.

While I agree that Trump is a liberal candidate, I find it amusing that you consider Trump and Coulter to be 'the left'.

Trump a liberal

And nationalist.

 

[jillian]

Trump and Ann Coulter both are raising the issue.

You are too busy with childish insults to notice.

The GOP backroom boys are not like the fucking stupid LIbs who will let a fucking negro run and not vett him.
The GOP has vetted Cruz, as much as they hate him, and found zero to preclude him from running. THINK!!!!!!!!

Again, shit-stain.....

SHOW US that 'GOP lawyers vetted Cruz'. As you citing yourself is just the meaningless gibberish of a hapless disphit.

THINK.

You really think that the GOP lawyers haven't vetted Cruz????
You think the GOP lawyers didn't bother to vett Cruz?
That's right you fucking moron! The GOP wants one of it's front runners ,like him or not, to suddenly be exposed as ineligible after the first Primaries. Oh ya that really going to help the GOP right? What are you like twelve? THINKKKKK!

You really think that you citing yourself is 'GOP lawyers?'

Ah, shit stain. You're adorable. But you're still gonna need to SHOW us that he was vetted. Not tell us about it. And of course, you're offering us a generic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Try again, dipshit. This time WITH evidence and WITHOUT the fallacies.

When anyone comes forward with any facts which disqualifies Cruz from running let us all know OK?
You may go back and see if the fucking stone dead Trayvon Martin or 'Big Mike' horses are not too stinky for you to climb back on loser.

you're a moron. It's an open question. End of story

 

[jillian]

George Romney was born in Mexico and he was still eligible to run for President.

Actually, that was thoroughly debated at the time. Just as Cruz's eligibility is today.

After thoroughly debating it they determined he was indeed eligible. Just as Cruz is today.

Seems the left can't defend the their candidates so they must try and destroy the opposition.

While I agree that Trump is a liberal candidate, I find it amusing that you consider Trump and Coulter to be 'the left'.

Trump a liberal

And nationalist.

I thought those concepts were mutually exclusive.

 

[jillian]

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil.

When did the Constitution mention soil?

the 14th amendment.

So from an originalism standpoint, it's not there.

1. no one who went to law school before scalia polluted the bench ever heard the word "originalist".
2. amendments have the same force and effect as every other part of the constitution.
3. so what are you talking about?

My question was to skylar, not you.

Oh. Sorry. What I said is still correct though. But now I understand your post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what exactly is a natural born citizen in your opinion?

Whatever the court says it is. But I'm pretty sure you can gauge what I think from my post.

Why do you think the phrase "natural born citizen" was intentionally used instead of citizen"?

Is a person born within the borders of the U.S. an natural born citizen?
Is a person born outside the borders of the U.S. because one or both of the parents are in the military (i.e. Germany, Japan, Korea) a natural born citizen?
Is a person born outside the borders of the U.S. but one or both parents are U.S. citizens and working overseas a natural born citizen?

You didn't answer the question, what is a "natural born citizen"?

So what exactly is a natural born citizen in your opinion?

Whatever the court says it is. But I'm pretty sure you can gauge what I think from my post.

Why do you think the phrase "natural born citizen" was intentionally used instead of citizen"?

I fully answered the question.

You failed to answer mine.-- which is why use the term "natural citizen" if they only cared about the president bring a citizen"? I know what I believe. But the court will address the issue.

As for being born out of the country on a military base- a military base is American territory. That is why John McCain was eligible for the presidency despite being born in Panama.

That issue is an old one.

which is why use the term "natural citizen" if they only cared about the president bring a citizen"

They didn't want one who was naturalized.

I've read certain sources saying Cruz was naturalized because his parents had lived in Canada for 8 years prior to his birth. You might want to check

I thought it was 4 years. Wiki says 3 years.

Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Militants]

It is Trump or Huckabee. Cruz and Rubio following + 1 or 2 more I will to trust in America. Not the democrats I wanted to trust in America even O'Malley is best of the worst.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Know what I find funny? That all the attacks the GOP has leveled against Obama, are the very same ones they are lobbing at themselves.

Cruz isn't a US citizen by birth. You conservatives yelled so much about that against Obama, that now it has become an attack that you use against your own if it seems to fit the bill.

What I find even funnier, is that now Ted Cruz is calling Donald the Chump an "establishment" candidate, and is now trying to paint himself as the outsider.

 

[Skylar]

And where did I ever say otherwise? The question isn't if Cruz is a citizen. He clearly is. The question is if citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute is 'natural born citizenship'?

You following Gomer?

Apparently you dont. The law says he is a citizen. Period. End of discussion

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Strawman. No one has claimed he isn't a citizen. We're discussing if he's a naturally born citizen. For the third time....this is what we're discussing:

Is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

Which you have yet to address. Feel free to join us if you ever muster up the courage to do so.

You agree that Ted Cruz is a United States citizen, correct?

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

There are only two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil.

When did the Constitution mention soil?

Citizenship by soil was the only type that existed at the time the constitution was ratified. Citizenship by blood claim later, by statute.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apparently you dont. The law says he is a citizen. Period. End of discussion

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Strawman. No one has claimed he isn't a citizen. We're discussing if he's a naturally born citizen. For the third time....this is what we're discussing:

Is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

Which you have yet to address. Feel free to join us if you ever muster up the courage to do so.

You agree that Ted Cruz is a United States citizen, correct?

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

There are only two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil.

When did the Constitution mention soil?

Citizenship by soil was the only type that existed at the time the constitution was ratified. Citizenship by blood claim later, by statute.

It's not in the Constitution.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Apparently you dont. The law says he is a citizen. Period. End of discussion

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Strawman. No one has claimed he isn't a citizen. We're discussing if he's a naturally born citizen. For the third time....this is what we're discussing:

Is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

Which you have yet to address. Feel free to join us if you ever muster up the courage to do so.

You agree that Ted Cruz is a United States citizen, correct?

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

There are only two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil.

When did the Constitution mention soil?

Citizenship by soil was the only type that existed at the time the constitution was ratified. Citizenship by blood claim later, by statute.

Why do you continue to argue things not relevant?

 

[Skylar]

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Forget for a second that I taught American Government to high school students and know the Constitution like the back of my hand. Tell me where it says anything of the sort!

Laughing...I'll definitely try and forget your half assed attempt at an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

You just keep repeating this as though it were true. It is not!

Then refute my argument. I'm not citing me. I'm citing the Supreme Court, James Madison, and the US State Department. First, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark discussing the meaning of 'natural born' in the US Constitution:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Which indicates that per English Common Law place of birth defines natural born status. And demonstrates the intregal link between allegiance and natural born status.

Next is James Madison, 'Father of the Constitution' who elegantly described the maxims of allegience following PLACE of birth in the United States.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

And finally the State Department, demonstrating that birth by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But instead is granted by statute only.

Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.'

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

And your reply is 'uh-uh'. I can see why you used to be an American government teacher.

None of those you quoted are in the Constitution.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't define natural born citizenship. Which you'd know if you'd read it. With the Supreme Court recognizing these terms must be gleaned from English Common Law:

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

To which you again reply 'uh-uh'. Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on how to glean the meaning of terms the constitution uses but doesn't define. Not you.

As would any rational person.

So, shall we try again for possible penetration of an apparently thick skull.

What is the applicable part of the Constitution of the United States that states Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States?

If we're using the originalist intepretation of the constitution, it would be the natural born citizen requirement. Which would be Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.

And since the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born' (as has been explained to you slowly and repeatedly), we have to go elsewhere to find out the meaning.

To which your reply is still 'uh-uh'.

So, you admit making it up completely and that you have no constitutional reference as to why he is not eligible.?

Wow. You really haven't been paying attention. The constitution doesn't define natural born citizen. Which you didn't know until I told you. So we have to use other sources. The Supreme Court came to the exact same conclusion.

I've quoted the other sources. James Madison. The United States Supreme Court. English Common Law. The State Department. And you ignored every single one of them. Even though they affirmed that allegiance follows place of birth, not parentage...or that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution.

Sorry....but the Supreme Court, James Madison, English Common law and the State Department are far better sources than you citing yourself. No matter how hard you ignore them.

You have read an seen (presumably) the US law that states Cruz was a citizen at birth. That is the applicable document to reference. Ignoring it just shows your inability to process information logically.

And where does US law indicate that Cruz is a natural born citizen? Here's the United States Code. All 52 Volumes of it. Show where it defines natural born citizen:

OLRC Home

You can't. The term doesn't appear in US law. Yet in defiance of all logic and reason, you insist that US law defines natural born citizenship.....despite the fact that it neither defines natural born citizenship nor even use the term.

That's not 'logical'. That's wildly irrational. And defines nothing legally. Nor have you offered any source, from any era, that backs anything you've said about natural born citizenship.

Its just you...citing this math teacher you know. And that math teacher knows jack shit. And is ignoring James Madison, the US Supreme Court, English Common law and the State Department while babbling ignorantly about a topic he clearly doesn't understand.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Forget for a second that I taught American Government to high school students and know the Constitution like the back of my hand. Tell me where it says anything of the sort!

Laughing...I'll definitely try and forget your half assed attempt at an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

You just keep repeating this as though it were true. It is not!

Then refute my argument. I'm not citing me. I'm citing the Supreme Court, James Madison, and the US State Department. First, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark discussing the meaning of 'natural born' in the US Constitution:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Which indicates that per English Common Law place of birth defines natural born status. And demonstrates the intregal link between allegiance and natural born status.

Next is James Madison, 'Father of the Constitution' who elegantly described the maxims of allegience following PLACE of birth in the United States.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

And finally the State Department, demonstrating that birth by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But instead is granted by statute only.

Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.'

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

And your reply is 'uh-uh'. I can see why you used to be an American government teacher.

None of those you quoted are in the Constitution.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't define natural born citizenship. Which you'd know if you'd read it. With the Supreme Court recognizing these terms must be gleaned from English Common Law:

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

To which you again reply 'uh-uh'. Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on how to glean the meaning of terms the constitution uses but doesn't define. Not you.

As would any rational person.

So, shall we try again for possible penetration of an apparently thick skull.

What is the applicable part of the Constitution of the United States that states Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States?

If we're using the originalist intepretation of the constitution, it would be the natural born citizen requirement. Which would be Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.

And since the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born' (as has been explained to you slowly and repeatedly), we have to go elsewhere to find out the meaning.

To which your reply is still 'uh-uh'.

So, you admit making it up completely and that you have no constitutional reference as to why he is not eligible.?

Wow. You really haven't been paying attention. The constitution doesn't define natural born citizen. Which you didn't know until I told you. So we have to use other sources. The Supreme Court came to the exact same conclusion.

I've quoted the other sources. James Madison. The United States Supreme Court. English Common Law. The State Department. And you ignored every single one of them. Even though they affirmed that allegiance follows place of birth, not parentage...or that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution.

Sorry....but the Supreme Court, James Madison, English Common law and the State Department are far better sources than you citing yourself. No matter how hard you ignore them.

You have read an seen (presumably) the US law that states Cruz was a citizen at birth. That is the applicable document to reference. Ignoring it just shows your inability to process information logically.

And where does US law indicate that Cruz is a natural born citizen? Here's the United States Code. All 52 Volumes of it. Show where it defines natural born citizen:

OLRC Home

You can't. The term doesn't appear in US law. Yet in defiance of all logic and reason, you insist that US law defines natural born citizenship.....despite the fact that it neither defines natural born citizenship nor even use the term.

That's not 'logical'. That's wildly irrational. And defines nothing legally. Nor have you offered any source, from any era, that backs anything you've said about natural born citizenship.

Its just you...citing this math teacher you know. And that math teacher knows jack shit. And is ignoring James Madison, the US Supreme Court, English Common law and the State Department while babbling ignorantly about a topic he clearly doesn't understand.

Am I suppose to surrender the discussion because you want to cut and past every distraction and not-applicable article you can find?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have a good day and enjoy your delirium.

 

[Skylar]

Strawman. No one has claimed he isn't a citizen. We're discussing if he's a naturally born citizen. For the third time....this is what we're discussing:

Is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

Which you have yet to address. Feel free to join us if you ever muster up the courage to do so.

You agree that Ted Cruz is a United States citizen, correct?

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

There are only two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil.

When did the Constitution mention soil?

Citizenship by soil was the only type that existed at the time the constitution was ratified. Citizenship by blood claim later, by statute.

Why do you continue to argue things not relevant?

And who says its irrelevant? There you and that math teacher you keep bizarrely quoting as a scholar in the US Constitution. But that poor bastard didn't even know that natural born citizenship wasn't defined by the constitution until I told him. He's clueless. So what else have you got?

Lets try this slowly. Are you familar with the concept of 'originalism' in interpreting the US constitution? Its also called the 'jurisprudence of original intent'.

No? Well, let me walk you through it. It means interpreting the constitution by determining what the *founders* meant by the terms that they used when the constitution was ratified. The USSC often uses this standard. When they were trying to figure out the meaning of 'natural born citizen' for example, they went back to English Common Law, as this was the lens through which the founders understood the terms they used.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

Can you comprehend what the Supreme Court is saying here. If not, is there an English Teacher nearby that can read this to you?

This is the standard that Cruz insists we use. What the founders mean when they ratified the Constitution.

Now, using Cruz's own standard of originalism, the term 'natural born citizen' would mean what the FOUNDERS intended it to mean. And with all citizenship by blood arising from statute passed by congress AFTER the ratification of the constitution...its physically impossible for citizenship by blood to be part of the founders meaning of 'natural born citizenship' when the constitution was ratified.

Again, cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by 2 years. If you don't understand that concept, grab a Science teacher and have them explain it to you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You agree that Ted Cruz is a United States citizen, correct?

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

There are only two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil.

When did the Constitution mention soil?

Citizenship by soil was the only type that existed at the time the constitution was ratified. Citizenship by blood claim later, by statute.

Why do you continue to argue things not relevant?

And who says its irrelevant? There you and that math teacher you keep bizarrely quoting as a scholar in the US Constitution. But that poor bastard didn't even know that natural born citizenship wasn't defined by the constitution until I told him. He's clueless. So what else have you got?

Lets try this slowly. Are you familar with the concept of 'originalism' in interpreting the US constitution? Its also called the 'jurisprudence of original intent'. It means interpreting the constitution by determining what the *founders* meant by the terms that they used when the constitution was ratified. The USSC often uses this standard. When they were trying to figure out the meaning of 'natural born citizen' for example, they went back to English Common Law, as this was the lens through which the founders understood the terms they used.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

Can you comprehend what the Supreme Court is saying here. If not, is there an English Teacher nearby that can read this to you?

Ironic that you want to insult me and claim that I cannot read when it was readily apparent to anyone reading my posts that I am the math teacher! I am dual certified in the subjects of math and history, and I have taught both over the course of my career depending on the needs of my schools, often at the same time.

You on the other hand seem to be a self-impressed jerk who cannot keep his argument straight even with yourself!

Goodbye!

I love the feel when I click "Ignore" and people just disappear!

 

[Skylar]

Laughing...I'll definitely try and forget your half assed attempt at an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Then refute my argument. I'm not citing me. I'm citing the Supreme Court, James Madison, and the US State Department. First, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark discussing the meaning of 'natural born' in the US Constitution:

Which indicates that per English Common Law place of birth defines natural born status. And demonstrates the intregal link between allegiance and natural born status.

Next is James Madison, 'Father of the Constitution' who elegantly described the maxims of allegience following PLACE of birth in the United States.

And finally the State Department, demonstrating that birth by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But instead is granted by statute only.

And your reply is 'uh-uh'. I can see why you used to be an American government teacher.

None of those you quoted are in the Constitution.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't define natural born citizenship. Which you'd know if you'd read it. With the Supreme Court recognizing these terms must be gleaned from English Common Law:

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

To which you again reply 'uh-uh'. Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on how to glean the meaning of terms the constitution uses but doesn't define. Not you.

As would any rational person.

So, shall we try again for possible penetration of an apparently thick skull.

What is the applicable part of the Constitution of the United States that states Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States?

If we're using the originalist intepretation of the constitution, it would be the natural born citizen requirement. Which would be Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.

And since the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born' (as has been explained to you slowly and repeatedly), we have to go elsewhere to find out the meaning.

To which your reply is still 'uh-uh'.

So, you admit making it up completely and that you have no constitutional reference as to why he is not eligible.?

Wow. You really haven't been paying attention. The constitution doesn't define natural born citizen. Which you didn't know until I told you. So we have to use other sources. The Supreme Court came to the exact same conclusion.

I've quoted the other sources. James Madison. The United States Supreme Court. English Common Law. The State Department. And you ignored every single one of them. Even though they affirmed that allegiance follows place of birth, not parentage...or that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution.

Sorry....but the Supreme Court, James Madison, English Common law and the State Department are far better sources than you citing yourself. No matter how hard you ignore them.

You have read an seen (presumably) the US law that states Cruz was a citizen at birth. That is the applicable document to reference. Ignoring it just shows your inability to process information logically.

And where does US law indicate that Cruz is a natural born citizen? Here's the United States Code. All 52 Volumes of it. Show where it defines natural born citizen:

OLRC Home

You can't. The term doesn't appear in US law. Yet in defiance of all logic and reason, you insist that US law defines natural born citizenship.....despite the fact that it neither defines natural born citizenship nor even use the term.

That's not 'logical'. That's wildly irrational. And defines nothing legally. Nor have you offered any source, from any era, that backs anything you've said about natural born citizenship.

Its just you...citing this math teacher you know. And that math teacher knows jack shit. And is ignoring James Madison, the US Supreme Court, English Common law and the State Department while babbling ignorantly about a topic he clearly doesn't understand.

Am I suppose to surrender the discussion because you want to cut and past every distraction and not-applicable article you can find?

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution insisting that allegiance follows PLACE of birth in the United States isn't applicable in a discussion of the nature of citizenship?

The US Supreme Court explicitly citing English Common law as the lens through which we can understand the meaning of terms like 'natural born citizen' that the US constitution doesn't define....is not 'applicable' to a discussion of natural born citizenship?

The US Supreme Court explicitly citing PLACE of birth as the basis of natural born status under English common law isn't applicable in a discussion of the nature of natural born citizenship?

Of course its relevant. Of course its applicable. You're being wildly irrational, insisting that natural born citizenship means what you think it means, citing only yourself. And rejecting anything that contradicts your personal opinion, from US law, to the Supreme Court, to the State Department to the Father of the Constitution.

Oh, and you failing utterly to cite anywhere in the USC where the term 'natural born citizen' is defined didn't go unnoticed. Still trying to claim that US law defines it? Or did you abandon the irrational piece of pseudo-legal nonsense?

 

[Skylar]

Absolutely. No one I've seen has said otherwise. If you believe I have, quote me.

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil. Citizenship by blood is granted through statute and not embodied in the constitution.

So the question is....is citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute 'natural born citizenship'?

By the standards of originalism (which Cruz uses), probably not. As originalism (also known as 'jurisprudence by original intent) the constitution and its terms are gleaned by understanding what the founders understood them to mean when they ratified it. And citizenship by blood was not embodied in the constitution. But came after.

If you're using a 'living document' interpretation of the constitution then laws that came after can be used instead of the original intent of the founders.

By Cruz's own standards...he's probably not eligible.

See how easy that was?

Under our current law, absolutely. But citizenship embodied by the constitution? There's only citizenship by soil.

When did the Constitution mention soil?

Citizenship by soil was the only type that existed at the time the constitution was ratified. Citizenship by blood claim later, by statute.

Why do you continue to argue things not relevant?

And who says its irrelevant? There you and that math teacher you keep bizarrely quoting as a scholar in the US Constitution. But that poor bastard didn't even know that natural born citizenship wasn't defined by the constitution until I told him. He's clueless. So what else have you got?

Lets try this slowly. Are you familar with the concept of 'originalism' in interpreting the US constitution? Its also called the 'jurisprudence of original intent'. It means interpreting the constitution by determining what the *founders* meant by the terms that they used when the constitution was ratified. The USSC often uses this standard. When they were trying to figure out the meaning of 'natural born citizen' for example, they went back to English Common Law, as this was the lens through which the founders understood the terms they used.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

Can you comprehend what the Supreme Court is saying here. If not, is there an English Teacher nearby that can read this to you?

Ironic that you want to insult me and claim that I cannot read when it was readily apparent to anyone reading my posts that I am the math teacher! I am dual certified in the subjects of math and history, and I have taught both over the course of my career depending on the needs of my schools, often at the same time.

Then explain to us how citizenship by blood could be part of the founders meaning of the term 'natural born citizen' at the ratification of the Constitution......when citizenship by blood was added by Congress 2 years AFTER the constitution was ratified.

You can't. Because we both know that citizenship by blood was NOT embodied in the Constitution when it was ratified.

All you can do is run. If you ever muster up the courage for another lesson on history and the Constitution....I'll be here. And I'll bring James Madison, the USSC, English Common law and the State department with me. Or at the very least, their words and content.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laughing...I'll definitely try and forget your half assed attempt at an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Then refute my argument. I'm not citing me. I'm citing the Supreme Court, James Madison, and the US State Department. First, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark discussing the meaning of 'natural born' in the US Constitution:

Which indicates that per English Common Law place of birth defines natural born status. And demonstrates the intregal link between allegiance and natural born status.

Next is James Madison, 'Father of the Constitution' who elegantly described the maxims of allegience following PLACE of birth in the United States.

And finally the State Department, demonstrating that birth by blood is not embodied in the Constitution. But instead is granted by statute only.

And your reply is 'uh-uh'. I can see why you used to be an American government teacher.

None of those you quoted are in the Constitution.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't define natural born citizenship. Which you'd know if you'd read it. With the Supreme Court recognizing these terms must be gleaned from English Common Law:

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

To which you again reply 'uh-uh'. Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on how to glean the meaning of terms the constitution uses but doesn't define. Not you.

As would any rational person.

So, shall we try again for possible penetration of an apparently thick skull.

What is the applicable part of the Constitution of the United States that states Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States?

If we're using the originalist intepretation of the constitution, it would be the natural born citizen requirement. Which would be Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.

And since the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born' (as has been explained to you slowly and repeatedly), we have to go elsewhere to find out the meaning.

To which your reply is still 'uh-uh'.

So, you admit making it up completely and that you have no constitutional reference as to why he is not eligible.?

Wow. You really haven't been paying attention. The constitution doesn't define natural born citizen. Which you didn't know until I told you. So we have to use other sources. The Supreme Court came to the exact same conclusion.

I've quoted the other sources. James Madison. The United States Supreme Court. English Common Law. The State Department. And you ignored every single one of them. Even though they affirmed that allegiance follows place of birth, not parentage...or that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution.

Sorry....but the Supreme Court, James Madison, English Common law and the State Department are far better sources than you citing yourself. No matter how hard you ignore them.

You have read an seen (presumably) the US law that states Cruz was a citizen at birth. That is the applicable document to reference. Ignoring it just shows your inability to process information logically.

And where does US law indicate that Cruz is a natural born citizen? Here's the United States Code. All 52 Volumes of it. Show where it defines natural born citizen:

OLRC Home

You can't. The term doesn't appear in US law. Yet in defiance of all logic and reason, you insist that US law defines natural born citizenship.....despite the fact that it neither defines natural born citizenship nor even use the term.

That's not 'logical'. That's wildly irrational. And defines nothing legally. Nor have you offered any source, from any era, that backs anything you've said about natural born citizenship.

Its just you...citing this math teacher you know. And that math teacher knows jack shit. And is ignoring James Madison, the US Supreme Court, English Common law and the State Department while babbling ignorantly about a topic he clearly doesn't understand.

Am I suppose to surrender the discussion because you want to cut and past every distraction and not-applicable article you can find?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have a good day and enjoy your delirium.

It's actually very simple and easy to understand.

There are only two types of citizens:

Natural born citizen

Naturalized citizen

If one realizes his citizenship absent the naturalization process, then he's a natural born citizen, eligible to be president – McCain, Obama, Cruz.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

After thoroughly debating it they determined he was indeed eligible. Just as Cruz is today.

Seems the left can't defend the their candidates so they must try and destroy the opposition.

I'm in the middle. Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. The Constitution is clear. He can't be president.

your argument is flawed, Obama held dual citizenship, Kenya and U.S. He was elected, twice.

 

[Syriusly]

You dont even know what the constitution is and you try to preach it to us?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Yet he is correct about the Constitution- and you have offered nothing but a worthless personal attack.

No he isnt. The constitution gives congress the power to decide citizenship.

And where did I ever say otherwise? The question isn't if Cruz is a citizen. He clearly is. The question is if citizenship not embodied in the constitution but granted through statute is 'natural born citizenship'?

You following Gomer?

Apparently you dont. The law says he is a citizen. Period. End of discussion

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

The law says no such thing. He may be. He may not be. The court decides. Not you.

Actually it is unlikely the courts will decide anything.

Parties decide whether their candidates are eligible- and then certify that to the States. If the Republican Party nominates Cruz, unless a court or some Secretary of State says he is not eligible, he would be on the ballot.

He will be presumed eligible unless someone gets a court to say otherwise.

 

[ABikerSailor]

After thoroughly debating it they determined he was indeed eligible. Just as Cruz is today.

Seems the left can't defend the their candidates so they must try and destroy the opposition.

I'm in the middle. Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. The Constitution is clear. He can't be president.

your argument is flawed, Obama held dual citizenship, Kenya and U.S. He was elected, twice.

Yet another "birther" idiot. Obama never even went to Kenya until after he was an adult. He DID however spend some time in Indonesia, traveling with his mother, but if you actually knew anything, you would know that Indonesia is a full continent away from Kenya.