is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Skylar]

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. And Law of Nations was the most requested book from the library during the constitutional conventions.

Its completely relevant. The term 'natural born citizen' didn't exist in any edition of the Law of Nations used by the founders. The term that was eventually translated into 'natural born citizen' in 1797 was 'indigènes'. Which doesn't mean 'natural born citizen. But "indigenous".

There's no conceivable way that the founders could have used the Law of Nations as their guide fpr the meaning of the term.

Where English Common law was immediately available to them, with most of the founders well versed in its meaning. And it already had 'natural born' status. Making English common law the only plausible and by far most likely source of the meaning of the term.

A fact confirmed by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark v US.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't like Ark, Don't know no stinking Ark. Ese.

 

[washamericom]

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

.

same as...

so i'll ask again, who can't be president ? that may help.

looks like wiki's right on it too. heh heh.
Natural-born-citizen clause Revision history - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Skylar]

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

.

same as...

so i'll ask again, who can't be president ? that may help.

Anyone who wasn't a US citizen at the time of their birth.

 

[washamericom]

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.

and only applies to one job then 2. 12th ammendment


Constitutional provisions[edit]

Part of the constitutional provision as it appeared in 1787
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.[2][3]

Eight of the first nine presidents – Martin Van Buren being the exception – as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution but were eligible for the office by virtue of having been citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted.[4]

§Rationale[edit]
.

 

[washamericom]

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.

i'd like to hear more about the lending library (ben franklin?) and the borrowing of de vatel.

also, it doesn't mean that every written word on the subject hasn't been found yet at the library of congress, the world's biggest library.(or other libraries and collections. even the obots couldn't locate then scrub the whole darn library.

this would be a good example of the obots not knowing everything, as they would like to have you believe. heh.

 

[washamericom]

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.

the vice president, always have to be natural born ?

 

[washamericom]

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.

i don't get stevie on this channel no more.. it's like he was never here. good messageboard feature..

 

[Skylar]

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.

i don't get stevie on this channel no more.. i't like he was never here. good messageboard feature..

Oh, the ignore feature here is superb. There are a few posters here that simply troll. And I prefer to keep my messageboard experience relatively tidy.

 

[dcraelin]

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

well under your interpretation the kid from France would be illegible ...that isn't right either....
its two things together citizenship...and natural born

I see you still havent tried to explain what you think it DID mean.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Vattel?...... you are wrong, its the Constitutions definition......a natural born citizen,....citizen born within the US

 

[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

well under your interpretation the kid from France would be illegible ...that isn't right either....
its two things together citizenship...and natural born

I see you still havent tried to explain what you think it DID mean.

Illegible?

If you are born to American parents, there is no question you are legible, I thought that was pretty clear

 

[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.

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.

they may have allowed them to be citizens.....I would say unconsittuionally... but there is the addition of Natural born

 

[dcraelin]

here is an interesting take on Cruz from and handwriting expert who analyzed his signature on the letter to Iran.

"What is this?! None of the letters look like what they are intended to represent. The T looks like a Z, there’s no telling what the other letters are if you don’t already know. The last name looks like a capital G. When someone makes their name entirely illegible, there is much going on behind the scenes that he doesn’t want others to know about. Letters that look like other letters are a primary sign of misdirection. Cruz is quick to switch gears and he rearranges the way he thinks with great facility. Situational ethics allow him to switch sides of an argument when it seems expedient."

Cruz is a shill


further........ a shill ineligible to be president.

 

[dcraelin]

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

well under your interpretation the kid from France would be illegible ...that isn't right either....
its two things together citizenship...and natural born

I see you still havent tried to explain what you think it DID mean.

Illegible?

If you are born to American parents, there is no question you are legible, I thought that was pretty clear

dodging the question again I see.....

u may be a citizen.....just not one naturally born

 

[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.

they may have allowed them to be citizens.....I would say unconsittuionally... but there is the addition of Natural born

They cited them specifically as 'natural born' citizens.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

they may have allowed them to be citizens.....I would say unconsittuionally... but there is the addition of Natural born

They cited them specifically as 'natural born' citizens.

I dont think they did, but if so they were wrong....They cannot change the terms of the Constitution

interestingly the resident head idiot on the SC asked at the gerrymandering hearing of the term legislature..."what else could it mean"...even tho the Constitution grants legislative power ...i.e. lawmaking power...

so a legislature is lawmaking power

ask the same question tho of natural born citizen...what else could it mean.....the answer is it could only mean citizens born within the US.

 

[washamericom]

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.

i don't get stevie on this channel no more.. i't like he was never here. good messageboard feature..

Oh, the ignore feature here is superb. There are a few posters here that simply troll. And I prefer to keep my messageboard experience relatively tidy.

i thought it (ignore) would just redact his posts, i thought i'd still have to look at his creepy picture/avatar.. but now he's gone..completely,,, awesome... someone let me know if he repents, i'm big on second chances technology is good.

 

[Faun]

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

Hey Faun, Jake wants in on your fuckfest

It's your fantasy. You creep me out and I'd appreciate it if you keep your gay fantasies to yourself.

 

[washamericom]

we should at some point distinguish the executives from congreff