is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Skylar]

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.

I'm being pragmatic. And I'm citing existing precedent. Like Wong Kim Ark's recognition of English Common Law as the lens through which the meaning of constitutional terms can be understood.

Plus, there's simple sequence. The Law of Nations couldn't be the basis of the founder's understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', as the Law of Nations never included the words 'natural born citizen' nor any translation of these words until 1797.

Nearly 10 years AFTER the constitution was written. Recognizing that cause precedes effect isn't being 'dogmatic'. Its the acknowledging the way cause and effect works.

 

[kaz]

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.

You know I'm on your side on this, but I have to point out your argument is that legislatively they said natural born can be expanded legislatively, you see a problem with that argument?

As much as I hate the legislature, I sure trust them to do it more than the courts. Given that they didn't define it in the Constitution and since immigration is an enumerated federal power, it does seem they wanted the legislature to do it. That is followed up by shortly after their having completed the Constitution, the legislature created the first definition...

 

[kaz]

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.

I'm being pragmatic. And I'm citing existing precedent. Like Wong Kim Ark's recognition of English Common Law as the lens through which the meaning of constitutional terms can be understood.

Plus, there's simple sequence. The Law of Nations couldn't be the basis of the founder's understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', as the Law of Nations never included the words 'natural born citizen' nor any translation of these words until 1797.

Nearly 10 years AFTER the constitution was written. Recognizing that cause precedes effect isn't being 'dogmatic'. Its the acknowledging the way cause and effect works.

English common law is a great argument, clearly that was a strong influence on their thinking for these sorts of issues. And following that up with the number of them who lived in Commonwealth States is undeniable. Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania? Wow, the heart of the founding fathers were from those

 

[Faun]

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

Oddly enough, to you, that's gay sex. I can't help that you can't stop thinking about men having sex with each other.

 

[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.

You know I'm on your side on this, but I have to point out your argument is that legislatively they said natural born can be expanded legislatively, you see a problem with that argument?

8 of the 11 members of the committee on the eligibility requirements for President during the Constitutional Convention were part of the 1st congress that passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. And they had no problem with extending the definition of natural born legislatively.

Making the argument that the founders never intended the legislature to have a thing to do with the meaning of 'natural born' a very weak one. They extended the definition in the very first session of congress.

That is followed up by shortly after their having completed the Constitution, the legislature created the first definition...

It seems very unlikely that this definition was meant to be exclusive. Else no one born in the US could be president.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I'm being pragmatic. And I'm citing existing precedent. Like Wong Kim Ark's recognition of English Common Law as the lens through which the meaning of constitutional terms can be understood.

Plus, there's simple sequence. The Law of Nations couldn't be the basis of the founder's understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', as the Law of Nations never included the words 'natural born citizen' nor any translation of these words until 1797.

Nearly 10 years AFTER the constitution was written. Recognizing that cause precedes effect isn't being 'dogmatic'. Its the acknowledging the way cause and effect works.

English common law is a great argument, clearly that was a strong influence on their thinking for these sorts of issues. And following that up with the number of them who lived in Commonwealth States is undeniable. Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania? Wow, the heart of the founding fathers were from those

It always seemed pretty obvious. The legal tradition that most of the founders were educated in was the English tradition. The founders overwhelmingly based their new government on that of Britain. Bicameral legislatures, a prime minister, an independent judiciary. Even the same 'natural born' requirement for our president that they English had for their Prime Minister.

And all of these definitions predate the constitution. Where The Law of Nation's definition of natural born citizen followed the constitution.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

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)

Says who?

Says the U.S. State Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs

Eligibility For The Presidency
7 FAM 1131.6-2
( TL:Con-68)
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in 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 puposes.

 

[Skylar]

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)

Says who?

Says the U.S. State Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs

Eligibility For The Presidency
7 FAM 1131.6-2
( TL:Con-68)
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in 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 puposes.

Show us the US State Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs saying this.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

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)

Says who?

Says the U.S. State Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs

Eligibility For The Presidency
7 FAM 1131.6-2
( TL:Con-68)
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in 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 puposes.

Show us the US State Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs saying this.

Look it up yourself. I don't have time. It's online and I am at the local happy hour bar talking to some good looking babes having cocktails right now.

 

[Skylar]

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)

Says who?

Says the U.S. State Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs

Eligibility For The Presidency
7 FAM 1131.6-2
( TL:Con-68)
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in 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 puposes.

Show us the US State Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs saying this.

Look it up yourself. I don't have time. It's online and I am at a happy hour bar talking to some good looking babes having cocktails.

You have fun with that. You seem the kinda guy that really needs to get laid.

 

[Skylar]

Oooh.....an interesting passage:

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23))
provides that the term"naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after
birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by
birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory
transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization

So do you admit that children who acquire US citizenship by birth abroad are not naturalized?

 

[Old Rocks]

Apuzzo doesn't think so, a lot of people agree. but there are newer elements to his arguments.

i still maintain this will hit the mainstream and the supreme court will address this before the next general election.

Senator Ted Cruz is a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth" by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. See Wong Kim Ark; Bellei (both explain that a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can become a U.S. citizen only through a naturalization Act of Congress). He is not a natural born citizen by virtue of the common law upon which the Framers relied to define a natural born citizen. Under that common law, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Being born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father, Cruz cannot satisfy that presidential eligibility definition which still existing under the Constitution today. He is therefore not a natural born citizen and not eligible to be President.
Read more at Flash Point Attorney Slays Western Free Press Over Article II Natural Born Citizen Requirement - Birther Report

i hadn't seen Rogers v. Bellei before.

i like appuzo, he's smart and dedicated to this subject.

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

it doesn't have to be just ted cruz as a test case, could be anyone, foreign born or with other ensuing constitutional issues. it will bring light to the obama case once again... which it moot now.

Given his statements concerning Earth Sciences, is he sane enough to run?

 

[kaz]

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

Oddly enough, to you, that's gay sex. I can't help that you can't stop thinking about men having sex with each other.

Oddly enough, you keep doing what I keep saying you do, faggot

 

[kaz]

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.

You know I'm on your side on this, but I have to point out your argument is that legislatively they said natural born can be expanded legislatively, you see a problem with that argument?

8 of the 11 members of the committee on the eligibility requirements for President during the Constitutional Convention were part of the 1st congress that passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. And they had no problem with extending the definition of natural born legislatively.

Making the argument that the founders never intended the legislature to have a thing to do with the meaning of 'natural born' a very weak one. They extended the definition in the very first session of congress.

It's interesting that you cut the rest of my quote then made the point I did in the part you cut, isn't it?

That is followed up by shortly after their having completed the Constitution, the legislature created the first definition...

It seems very unlikely that this definition was meant to be exclusive. Else no one born in the US could be president.

Again, you realize you are arguing a point you already know I agree with, right? Or not?

 

[washamericom]

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

Oddly enough, to you, that's gay sex. I can't help that you can't stop thinking about men having sex with each other.

Oddly enough, you keep doing what I keep saying you do, faggot

whoaa kaz, don't be a stevie..

 

[washamericom]

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

Oddly enough, to you, that's gay sex. I can't help that you can't stop thinking about men having sex with each other.

you guys always do this to my nice threads.

 

[washamericom]

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.

I'm being pragmatic. And I'm citing existing precedent. Like Wong Kim Ark's recognition of English Common Law as the lens through which the meaning of constitutional terms can be understood.

Plus, there's simple sequence. The Law of Nations couldn't be the basis of the founder's understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', as the Law of Nations never included the words 'natural born citizen' nor any translation of these words until 1797.

Nearly 10 years AFTER the constitution was written. Recognizing that cause precedes effect isn't being 'dogmatic'. Its the acknowledging the way cause and effect works.

your precedent is like roe v wade without abortion...

miranda w/o arizona, or miranda.

 

[washamericom]

Oooh.....an interesting passage:

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23))
provides that the term"naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after
birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by
birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory
transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization

So do you admit that children who acquire US citizenship by birth abroad are not naturalized?

that's the big question skylar, apparently they can just get a special waiver from congress (Ceremonial),

 

[IlarMeilyr]

left wing liberal Dumbocraps like Fakey like to raise the fake "issue" of eligibility because they are miffed that their Obamessiah was actually questioned concerning HIS own eligibility.

If we stipulate that Obumbler was born in Hawaii, then of course Obumbler was and is eligible.

As for Cruz, he has no allegiance to any foreign land. He was an American at birth. He is a natural born citizen and is eligible.

Period.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

As for Cruz, he has no allegiance to any foreign land.

Period.

If that's the case then why did he renounce his citizenship to Canada last June?