is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[dcraelin]

your an idiot ....

And yet of the two of us I was the only one that noticed that the contittuion doesn't define 'natural born citizen'. Putting your perception well below mine.

So does that make you less than a idiot?

it doesnt define it because its damned obvious what it was. Constitution doesn't define a lot of things. What else could it be?

What it is- anyone who is born a U.S. citizen.

well yes, anyone born within the United states, i.e. a us citizen naturally born in the US.

It should be remembered that quite a few framers were probably foreign born....a higher percentage of people at the time were.....even so they put in this proviso...which no doubt prohibited some of them from eligibility to be president .....so it can not be portrayed as anti-immigrant, they were restricting even themselves.

It may not seem fair, but Cruz cannot be president unless there is a Constitutional amendment to change that provision. There are plenty of good eligible people to choose from.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being that the definition you're holding cruz to.....doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Worse for you, the founders clearly didn't hold your 'only an amendment can change the definition of natural born' argument. As in the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they extended natural born status to those born to US parents outside the US. Demonstrating elegantly that changes in the meaning of natural born status need not be made by constitutional amendment. But can be done via plain old changes to naturalization law.

So your argument fails twice.

like I said before ...you are an idiot.....no legislative law can change the meaning of natural born citizen.....

and you still haven't suggested what else they possibly could have meant by it....

Our whole system is set up on the basis that the Constitution is the supreme law..... Thats why you look to the courts so much.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The weirdies' interpretation of the law is a fabrication, does not exist, is a figment of their diseased imagination. Cruz is eligible to run.

 

[dcraelin]

According to the Constitution
is ted cruz eligible to run ??

He can run but he is not constitutionally eligible to be the POTUS because he is not a natural born citizen of the USA. If he becomes the President then he has usurped the office. Just as Chester Arthur and Obama usurped the presidency.

Not true. He was born in Canada but to an American mother which gave him dual status. He has already been vetted to run by BOTH parties.

what do you mean "vetted" to run by both parties ...its not up to them..........but it may just give a hint as to his role, spoiler.

of course the Democrats want him to run...and the establishment, corrupt wing of the Republican party.

He's a shill

 

[Faun]

Your own word parsing words, which is why the only people who bought it was your fuck buddies

Your gay fantasies are noted.

Um...when the three of you keep giggling and stroking each other it doesn't leave much to the imagination. Actually I'd like you "guys" to get a room

And yet, all you have guiding you is your imagination. And your imagination is fantasizing about gay sex.

Your frustration is noted.

 

[lutraphile]

Maybe this is a way to convince people to repeal what is an incredibly stupid law to begin with.

 

[kaz]

Your own word parsing words, which is why the only people who bought it was your fuck buddies

Your gay fantasies are noted.

Um...when the three of you keep giggling and stroking each other it doesn't leave much to the imagination. Actually I'd like you "guys" to get a room

And yet, all you have guiding you is your imagination. And your imagination is fantasizing about gay sex.

Your frustration is noted.

Whatever. Anyway, you have my request. If you can respond to my actual posts that would be cool. When you three girls want to beat each other off, doing that in privacy would be swell

 

[kaz]

like I said before ...you are an idiot.....no legislative law can change the meaning of natural born citizen.....

and you still haven't suggested what else they possibly could have meant by it....

Our whole system is set up on the basis that the Constitution is the supreme law..... Thats why you look to the courts so much.

Let's say Jefferson had a child born when he was in Paris. And let's say a French diplomat at the same time had a child born in New York. A year later they both return home. You think they meant the French kid can be President but Jefferson's kid can't.

That's just stupid

 

[JakeStarkey]

When Kaz does not fantasize about gay sex, Kaz makes some sense. Other, not too much.

 

[Faun]

And yet of the two of us I was the only one that noticed that the contittuion doesn't define 'natural born citizen'. Putting your perception well below mine.

So does that make you less than a idiot?

it doesnt define it because its damned obvious what it was. Constitution doesn't define a lot of things. What else could it be?

What it is- anyone who is born a U.S. citizen.

well yes, anyone born within the United states, i.e. a us citizen naturally born in the US.

It should be remembered that quite a few framers were probably foreign born....a higher percentage of people at the time were.....even so they put in this proviso...which no doubt prohibited some of them from eligibility to be president .....so it can not be portrayed as anti-immigrant, they were restricting even themselves.

It may not seem fair, but Cruz cannot be president unless there is a Constitutional amendment to change that provision. There are plenty of good eligible people to choose from.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being that the definition you're holding cruz to.....doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Worse for you, the founders clearly didn't hold your 'only an amendment can change the definition of natural born' argument. As in the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they extended natural born status to those born to US parents outside the US. Demonstrating elegantly that changes in the meaning of natural born status need not be made by constitutional amendment. But can be done via plain old changes to naturalization law.

So your argument fails twice.

like I said before ...you are an idiot.....no legislative law can change the meaning of natural born citizen.....

and you still haven't suggested what else they possibly could have meant by it....

Our whole system is set up on the basis that the Constitution is the supreme law..... Thats why you look to the courts so much.

Vattel's definition has never been applied in the U.S. The only definition ever applied was either those who were naturalized before the adoption of the Constitution or a citizen at birth since then. The only way to change that to Vattel's definition would be either the ratification of a new Constitutional amendment to that effect or a court ruling of same. Until then, anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is eligible.

 

[kaz]

When Kaz does not fantasize about gay sex, Kaz makes some sense. Other, not too much.

Hey Faun, Jake wants in on your fuckfest

 

[kaz]

it doesnt define it because its damned obvious what it was. Constitution doesn't define a lot of things. What else could it be?

What it is- anyone who is born a U.S. citizen.

well yes, anyone born within the United states, i.e. a us citizen naturally born in the US.

It should be remembered that quite a few framers were probably foreign born....a higher percentage of people at the time were.....even so they put in this proviso...which no doubt prohibited some of them from eligibility to be president .....so it can not be portrayed as anti-immigrant, they were restricting even themselves.

It may not seem fair, but Cruz cannot be president unless there is a Constitutional amendment to change that provision. There are plenty of good eligible people to choose from.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being that the definition you're holding cruz to.....doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Worse for you, the founders clearly didn't hold your 'only an amendment can change the definition of natural born' argument. As in the Naturalization Act of 1790.....they extended natural born status to those born to US parents outside the US. Demonstrating elegantly that changes in the meaning of natural born status need not be made by constitutional amendment. But can be done via plain old changes to naturalization law.

So your argument fails twice.

like I said before ...you are an idiot.....no legislative law can change the meaning of natural born citizen.....

and you still haven't suggested what else they possibly could have meant by it....

Our whole system is set up on the basis that the Constitution is the supreme law..... Thats why you look to the courts so much.

Vattel's definition has never been applied in the U.S. The only definition ever applied was either those who were naturalized before the adoption of the Constitution or a citizen at birth since then. The only way to change that to Vattel's definition would be either the ratification of a new Constitutional amendment to that effect or a court ruling of same. Until then, anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is eligible.

From either a technicality standpoint or from a common sense standpoint, It really is simple. Either you are born a natural citizen or you are a naturalized citizen.

On the technicality side, If you are born to an American parent, you are immediately eligible to be a citizen. That current law requires them to file paperwork doesn’t mean you are being naturalized. Your qualification is automatic, so the paperwork isn’t naturalizing you, you were born natural. It’s just the paperwork to declare that.

The common sense side is even more compelling. Clearly their intent was that someone who’s been an American all their life should hold the highest office in the land. If you are born to an American then that is clearly consistent with their intent. That the founders would say sure, you were born to an American and you were an American your whole life, but sorry, buzz, it’s about the spot you were born on is stupid. Those were people who thought everything through.

I like when conservatives want something, they reason like liberals and they want the courts to back them up and make the law say what they want like the liberals.

 

[kaz]

According to the Constitution
is ted cruz eligible to run ??

He can run but he is not constitutionally eligible to be the POTUS because he is not a natural born citizen of the USA. If he becomes the President then he has usurped the office. Just as Chester Arthur and Obama usurped the presidency.

Yeah, clearly the founders had your PMSing teenage girl reasoning and they thought someone who was born to American parents and was an American their whole life but was born on the wrong spot of land shouldn't be President. You know, just cuse. Like everything else they wrote. Unbelievable.

 

[washamericom]

Top lawyers No question Canada-born Cruz eligible for presidency

i love the bravado here.. "nope, no question"... heh, i guess we'll see.

plus they're top lawyers, not just like the other kinds of lawyers.

 

[washamericom]

like I said before ...you are an idiot.....no legislative law can change the meaning of natural born citizen.....

and you still haven't suggested what else they possibly could have meant by it....

Our whole system is set up on the basis that the Constitution is the supreme law..... Thats why you look to the courts so much.

Let's say Jefferson had a child born when he was in Paris. And let's say a French diplomat at the same time had a child born in New York. A year later they both return home. You think they meant the French kid can be President but Jefferson's kid can't.

That's just stupid

they do, that's what they think, plus anyone born here of any parents citizen or not, or one parent , but which one ??

. or one kim ark, whom never ever ran from or for anything.

now they want marco rubio to be vice president... can he ?

does natural born mean "just born here"., tourism babies would be a good example of that.

andrew jackson was the first tourism baby, but he was grandfathered, became president too.

if cruz's father was an American citizen, at tc's birth, that should be fine right ?

this is why we have a supreme court. because the law is too important to leave to the top lawers, politicians and the obots here at the forum.


Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution," write Neal Katyal and Paul Clement in an article published March 11. "There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better."


i see another non binding senate resolution on the horizon.

Katyal was born in the United States on March 12, 1970, to immigrant parents...

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Top lawyers No question Canada-born Cruz eligible for presidency

i love the bravado here.. "nope, no question"... heh, i guess we'll see.

plus they're top lawyers, not just like the other kinds of lawyers.

Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning. The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion. They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.

The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States", which is exactly what Ted Cruz is and not eligibe for Article 2 Section 1 that specifically calls for a natural born Citizen to be president.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz is eligible to run, even if not worthy to do so.

And Steve is the poster boy for the fallacy of bold assertions without evidence.

 

[Skylar]

According to the Constitution
is ted cruz eligible to run ??

He can run but he is not constitutionally eligible to be the POTUS because he is not a natural born citizen of the USA. If he becomes the President then he has usurped the office. Just as Chester Arthur and Obama usurped the presidency.

And why wouldn't he be a natural born citizen of the United States?

Because he was not born in the USA to parents who were US Citizens.

See, Vattel's Law of Nations.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Vattel's Law of Nations isn't the founders source on the term 'natural born citizen'. The term 'natural born citizen' didn't appear once in any edition of Law of Nations in any language.....until 1797. Almost a decade AFTER the constitution had been written.

Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by nearly 10 years.

Worse, in 1790, the founders proved that you can legislate a definition of natural born citizenship. As in the Naturalization Act of 1790, they declared that those children born to US parents while abroad was a natural born citizen.

 

[Muhammed]

Vattel's Law of Nations isn't the founders source on the term 'natural born citizen'. The term 'natural born citizen' didn't appear once in any edition of Law of Nations in any language.....until 1797. Almost a decade AFTER the constitution had been written.

That's irrelevant. The founders were very sophisticated people , many of whom could speak several languages. And Law of Nations was the most requested book from the library during the constitutional conventions. That was clearly the law book they were referring to when they drafted the US Constitution.

Where the hell else do you see the phrase "natural-born Citizen" used in that time period? Nowhere!

Obamadrones are simply brainwashed idiots who are totally and willfully ignorant of history.

 

[Skylar]

Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning. The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion. They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.

'Convincing evidence'? You're mising the point they made.

The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents

On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen - On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

You're going to have a hard time arguing that extending natural born status to those children born outside the US to US parents violates the 'original intent' of the founders, when none of the founders who worked on the natural born requirement in the Convention objected to the change made by the first congress.

Worse, you kinda missed the fact that its not Katyal and Clement that cite the Naturalization Act of 1790. But the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888).

Worse still, Katyal and Clement also cite the Supreme Court on British Common Law in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). With similar citations also existing in Wong Kim Ark immediately related to natural born status.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS rules, Steve et al drool.