Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
where are you getting this ?? is that dictum logic?Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute.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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
Nope. Having a US mother means he's a citizen at birth. A citizen at birth isn't 'naturalized'. Not by any law on our books. You're just making up pseudo-legal gibberish again.
The 'citizen at birth [is] pure pseudo-legal gibberish.
the burden of proof is upon the candidate.False.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute.dodging the question again I see.....
u may be a citizen.....just not one naturally born
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
Nope. Having a US mother means he's a citizen at birth. A citizen at birth isn't 'naturalized'. Not by any law on our books. You're just making up pseudo-legal gibberish again.
Then show us the statute that says someone who is a citizen at birth is 'naturalized'.
Because you just pulled that claim sideways out of your ass.
When you're born in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States it is.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute.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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
A citizen at birth isn't 'naturalized'.
Those are the State Departments words that apply to Ted Cruz born in a foreign sovereignty.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute. A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts: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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130, page 8)
That's a twisted argument, you are justifying citizenship by statute as opposed to the Constitution based on statute not the Constitution.
How does being born in Canada to US parents make him less of an American than being born in the US to American parents? All you're arguing is technicalities, something the founders weren't into
Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute.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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
Nope. Having a US mother means he's a citizen at birth. A citizen at birth isn't 'naturalized'. Not by any law on our books. You're just making up pseudo-legal gibberish again.
well, since i posted it, i've been thing about congress requirements for eligibility.well, it's certainly an interesting discussion.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute.What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
Nope. Having a US mother means he's a citizen at birth. A citizen at birth isn't 'naturalized'. Not by any law on our books. You're just making up pseudo-legal gibberish again.
The 'natural born' angle is debatable. The evidence is overwhelmingly on one side of the debate, but its a discussion.
The 'citizen at birth means naturalized' argument isn't. Its pure pseudo-legal gibberish. No where in our laws does it say that someone who is a citizen at birth is 'naturalized'.
Steven just made that shit up.
all they have to be is just a citizen.. and of course be able to fog up a mirror.
And you fantasizing I am smoking a cigar doesn't mean I'm smoking one. I have no control over your fantasies. Again, I'd prefer you keep them to yourself, but this is a public forum and I can't make you stop.Again, it's your fantasy. You can stop at anytime; but it seems you're addicted.It's your fantasy. You creep me out and I'd appreciate it if you keep your gay fantasies to yourself.When Kaz does not fantasize about gay sex, Kaz makes some sense. Other, not too much.
Hey Faun, Jake wants in on your fuckfest
Stroking guys cocks doesn't creep you out, but people saying you're stroking their cocks does? That's a bizarre system
If you are smoking a cigar, not saying you are smoking a cigar doesn't make it that you are not smoking it
Your whole line of argument fell apart once you classified Cruz as a "citizen by statute." There is no such thing. One is either born a citizen or not. If not, they must be naturalized to become a citizen.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute. A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts: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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130, page 8)
Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute.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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
Nope. Having a US mother means he's a citizen at birth. A citizen at birth isn't 'naturalized'. Not by any law on our books. You're just making up pseudo-legal gibberish again.
A citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen, unless both parents are citizens of the same country.
The obama presidency demonstrates that perfectly, wherein obama; born to a foreign national father, raised largely abroad has deep seated loyalties to foreign ideas which are hostile to American principle.
Those are the State Departments words that apply to Ted Cruz born in a foreign sovereignty.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute. A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts: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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130, page 8)
That's a twisted argument, you are justifying citizenship by statute as opposed to the Constitution based on statute not the Constitution.
How does being born in Canada to US parents make him less of an American than being born in the US to American parents? All you're arguing is technicalities, something the founders weren't into
I certainly hope many, many more conservatives think that. That's why I'll be voting for Cruz in my state's primary.The 'citizen at birth [is] pure pseudo-legal gibberish.
Nonsense.
A natural born citizen is a citizens who birth naturally resulted in citizenship. A Person born to two Citizens is axiomatically a citizen due to the natural consequence of BIRTH. Not as a result of statute which declares that under a given set of circumstances, a person is a citizen.
Understand that the individuals concluding that Legal statutes provide for natural born status, are the same people who use the same species of reasoning to conclude that there is a RIGHT to murder a BABY IN THE WOMB... that the SEAS ARE RISING! and that the 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality is PERFECTLY NORMAL.
Ted Cruz is a brilliant man and a fine America... but he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
The Ideological Left doesn't give a red rat's ass about the US Constitution, proven everyday in a thousand ways... but their seating of a person is NOT a natural born citizen has been and will continue to be a catastrophe for the United States.
Ted Cruz is a vastly superior human being than obama... thus Cruz, being an American, would be an immeasurably better President than obama.
He simply is not qualified... .
I didn't make up the code, see the state department for that.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute. A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts: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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130, page 8)
You don't get to make up your own classifications of citizenship.
I didn't make up the code, see the state department for that.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute. A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts: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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130, page 8)
You don't get to make up your own classifications of citizenship.
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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen. If you become a citizen later you are naturalized and not qualified to be President. What is unclear exactly?
ok...I guess we agree
says anyone with an ounce of common senseSays who?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.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?...... you are wrong, its the Constitutions definition......a natural born citizen,....citizen born within the US
I'm looking at it. Nowhere does the phrase, "citizen by statute," appear.I didn't make up the code, see the state department for that.Not true, especially in Ted Cruz's situation. Ted was naturalized by birth in a foreign sovereignty outside the jurisdiction of the United States making him a citizen by statute. A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts: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
What dodging? If you are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen.
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130, page 8)
You don't get to make up your own classifications of citizenship.
Translation: you can't back up your own claim.says anyone with a ounce of common senseSays who?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 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?...... you are wrong, its the Constitutions definition......a natural born citizen,....citizen born within the US
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.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?...... you are wrong, its the Constitutions definition......a natural born citizen,....citizen born within the US
