Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
It's actually very simple and easy to understand.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:
Wong Kim Ark v US said: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.
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.
That is what I have been saying all thread.