is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Skylar]

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

You're obviously wrong. As the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates. It included the recongition as natural born citizens those children born to US parents outside the US.

You say it can't happen. The very first congress says differently. Including 8 of the original 11 on the committee for the eligibility requirement during the constitutional convention.

Given you saying one thing and the very first congress saying another, I'm going with that congress.

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

Actually, I have. I've cited Wong Kim Ark and its elaborate description of English Common law as the source of the meaning of 'natural born'. Which followed place of birth, even to foreign parents.

This is the only plausible and by far more probable source for the meaning of natural born for the founders. A meaning that the very first congress changed in 1790. Demonstrating elegantly that the meaning of natural born is subject to legislative acts. And can be extended to other citizens at birth.

 

[washamericom]

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

Constitution never says that a natural born citizen must be born within the u.s..

well then what does it say ??

 

[washamericom]

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

You're obviously wrong. As the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates. It included the recongition as natural born citizens those children born to US parents outside the US.

You say it can't happen. The very first congress says differently. Including 8 of the original 11 on the committee for the eligibility requirement during the constitutional convention.

Given you saying one thing and the very first congress saying another, I'm going with that congress.

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

Actually, I have. I've cited Wong Kim Ark and its elaborate description of English Common law as the source of the meaning of 'natural born'. Which followed place of birth, even to foreign parents.

This is the only plausible and by far more probable source for the meaning of natural born for the founders. A meaning that the very first congress changed in 1790. Demonstrating elegantly that the meaning of natural born is subject to legislative acts. And can be extended to other citizens at birth.

wong kim ark is and always has been irrelevant to the American presidency & vice (although is may be/may have been germane to the vice president when he wasn't/before connected to the ticket by the electoral college) discussion for another time..,

so too goes by the irrelevant wastedump, is the 14th amendment argument...(in this case) sorry guys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are fantasizing on guy's cocks, Kaz, as well as asses.

Try women again, you may feel better.

On the other hand, you may have been pretending to be hetero all this time.

I'm not following your logic that since you're the one who joined their circle jerk that I'm the one who is obsessed with cocks

You are the one who is obsessed with asses and dicks today, bro.

 

[dcraelin]

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

You're obviously wrong. As the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates. It included the recongition as natural born citizens those children born to US parents outside the US.

You say it can't happen. The very first congress says differently. Including 8 of the original 11 on the committee for the eligibility requirement during the constitutional convention.

Given you saying one thing and the very first congress saying another, I'm going with that congress.

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

Actually, I have. I've cited Wong Kim Ark and its elaborate description of English Common law as the source of the meaning of 'natural born'. Which followed place of birth, even to foreign parents.

This is the only plausible and by far more probable source for the meaning of natural born for the founders. A meaning that the very first congress changed in 1790. Demonstrating elegantly that the meaning of natural born is subject to legislative acts. And can be extended to other citizens at birth.

why dont you put this "elaborate description" here...I still have not seen a common sense explanation....

This is from Wikipedia tho

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.---John Jay

While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[16]

 

[dcraelin]

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

Constitution never says that a natural born citizen must be born within the u.s..

WHAT, THE HELL ELSE could "natural born" mean??????
you have got to be a lawyer...only a lawyer could screw up a simple phrase like this.

 

[washamericom]

what if a tourist baby was born right on the border, then what ? the airplane birth.. what about territorial waters ??

and... wait for it... you know the first hovering drone birth baby is on the horizon....

pretty spooky to think that kim jong un and some vegas hooker, could have a drone tourist baby that could someday become president...

may not be so bad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The haters will hate: that's what they do.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Constitution never says that a natural born citizen must be born within the u.s..

WHAT, THE HELL ELSE could "natural born" mean??????

Wait- so are you finally admitting that this is just your interpretation- and not what the 'Constitution' says?

What the hell else could it mean?

Well it could mean anyone born outside the United States to two U.S. citizen parents like Congress said in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Clearly they thought that was a possibility.

And by extension - it could mean anyone born an American citizen.

Because if they are born a citizen- they sure aren't naturalized.

 

[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.

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

Constitution never says that a natural born citizen must be born within the u.s..

WHAT, THE HELL ELSE could "natural born" mean??????

Wait- so are you finally admitting that this is just your interpretation- and not what the 'Constitution' says?

What the hell else could it mean?

Well it could mean anyone born outside the United States to two U.S. citizen parents like Congress said in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Clearly they thought that was a possibility.

And by extension - it could mean anyone born an American citizen.

Because if they are born a citizen- they sure aren't naturalized.

no..... 2 things...citizenship, which can be granted ....naturalization.

natural born.....thats just simple damn english ....you got to be born within the US

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

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.

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.

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.

There's no such restriction. A person born in the US to two US parents would most certainly be a natural born citizen. But then so would a person born in the US to two foreign nationals. As long as those nationals were subject to US law, their child would be a natural born citizen.

And given the Naturalization Act of 1790, the founders demonstrated that someone born to two US parents outside the US would be a natural born citizen. And that this designation could be applied legislatively.

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.

He was raised abroad for 4 years. The overwhelming majority of his childhood was state side. As is the overwhelming majority of his life. John McCain for example lived far more his childhood outside the US than Obama ever did.

The Nationality Act of 1790's formula is not included in any modern nationality statutes. In any event, 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. (Like Article 2 Section 1)

7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents
7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally

[Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute [generally]
have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in
the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution.]

 

[Faun]

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

You're obviously wrong. As the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates. It included the recongition as natural born citizens those children born to US parents outside the US.

You say it can't happen. The very first congress says differently. Including 8 of the original 11 on the committee for the eligibility requirement during the constitutional convention.

Given you saying one thing and the very first congress saying another, I'm going with that congress.

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

Actually, I have. I've cited Wong Kim Ark and its elaborate description of English Common law as the source of the meaning of 'natural born'. Which followed place of birth, even to foreign parents.

This is the only plausible and by far more probable source for the meaning of natural born for the founders. A meaning that the very first congress changed in 1790. Demonstrating elegantly that the meaning of natural born is subject to legislative acts. And can be extended to other citizens at birth.

why dont you put this "elaborate description" here...I still have not seen a common sense explanation....

This is from Wikipedia tho

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.---John Jay

While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[16]

And hence, naturalized citizens, formerly foreigners, are not eligible.

You don't even realize what you just quoted, do you?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

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

Which means he's a natural born citizen.

False........completely false!

 

[Skylar]

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

Which means he's a natural born citizen.

False........completely false!

Says you. Which is meaningless. If you have an argument why I'm wrong, make it.

But 'baseless assertions' aren't worth the pressure you put on the keyboard to type them.

 

[Skylar]

why dont you put this "elaborate description" here...I still have not seen a common sense explanation....

Its Wong Kim Ark v. US. The courts go into the English Common law within the first few paragraphs of the Majority Opinion. Study up.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.---John Jay

While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[16]

And no where does it define 'natural born citizen'. Not in the constitution, not in the committees, not in Jay's letter. So much for your 'the constitution is clear' nonsense. The constitution is silent on the meaning of natural born. We have to go to English Common law for that.

And with 8 of that committee of 11 in the first congress where the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed and the meaning of natural born citizen extended to include those children born to US citizens abroad, you're going to have a hard time arguing that there was a prohibition on changing the meaning of natural born.

Not one of the 8 protested in the slightest when congress extended the definition by way a legislative act.

 

[washamericom]

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

Which means he's a natural born citizen.

False........completely false!

Says you. Which is meaningless. If you have an argument why I'm wrong, make it.

But 'baseless assertions' aren't worth the pressure you put on the keyboard to type them.

the simplist reason you're wrong is because you guys have already decided for all of us before it's a landmark case.

you're being dogmatic.

 

[kaz]

Now you are fantasizing on guy's cocks, Kaz, as well as asses.

Try women again, you may feel better.

On the other hand, you may have been pretending to be hetero all this time.

I'm not following your logic that since you're the one who joined their circle jerk that I'm the one who is obsessed with cocks

You are the one who is obsessed with asses and dicks today, bro.

Wow, you joining the three three gentlemen and parroting the exact same things as them sure shows how ridiculous it is for me to say you guys are having a cluster...

Let me give you a map. You are not in the third grade anymore. The same tactics don't work now

 

[kaz]

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.

Stroking guys cocks doesn't creep you out, but people saying you're stroking their cocks does? That's a bizarre system

Again, it's your fantasy. You can stop at anytime; but it seems you're addicted.

If you are smoking a cigar, not saying you are smoking a cigar doesn't make it that you are not smoking it

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.

The three of you are making the same arguments, making the same points, repeating the same stupid shit. Dude, you are smoking a cigar. And you're the worst of the three. You were the last in and just starting repeating their schtick, you never came up with anything of your own.

Well, now Jake is worse, he's the fourth in on your circle jerk, but Jake is the village idiot so that doesn't help you much. I'm not sure why he's helping you either since he's a racist, he doesn't like black people. I guess if they get him government money then he's OK with them

 

[Skylar]

The Nationality Act of 1790's formula is not included in any modern nationality statutes.

You're missing the point. The Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrated elegantly that the meaning of natural born could be extended legislatively. That the meaning of natural born was subject to legislative acts.

In any event, 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. (Like Article 2 Section 1)

Says who? Modern nationality statutes only recognize two classes of citizens Citizens at Birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third kind of citizenship. As no naturalized citizen is natural born, that leaves only citizens at birth.

Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute [generally]
have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in
the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution.]

And as the founders demonstrated with the Naturalization Act of 1790, natural born status can be acquired by statute. The 14th amendment makes no mention of 'natural born' anything. But citizens at birth. Rendering any claim that natural born citizenship is defined by the 14th a non-starter.

And our laws only recognize two classes of citizenship: citizen at birth. And citizen after birth. Since no citizen after birth is natural born, that leaves only citizens at birth to carry this designation.

 

[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.

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

Constitution never says that a natural born citizen must be born within the u.s..

WHAT, THE HELL ELSE could "natural born" mean??????

Wait- so are you finally admitting that this is just your interpretation- and not what the 'Constitution' says?

What the hell else could it mean?

Well it could mean anyone born outside the United States to two U.S. citizen parents like Congress said in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Clearly they thought that was a possibility.

And by extension - it could mean anyone born an American citizen.

Because if they are born a citizen- they sure aren't naturalized.

clearly

suppose a raft floating down the rio grand