is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[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.

I agree, though you libs think the Communist Manifesto inspired them and that was 60 years after the Constitution

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

Who said he HAD to?

That he CHOSE to do so (for symbolic/political reasons) was a mere a political choice. An unnecessary one.

 

[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.

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.

I agree, and I made the same point in another post if you are reading the discussion other than your own posts.

My point in this was more narrow. Your argument was that the legislature said the legislature can define it

 

[kaz]

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.

I don't like when the right (e.g., euthanasia, war on drugs) or the left (pretty much everything else) parse the Constitution and redefine what they were clear on. But it seems to me if they wanted to be clear they would have been, which means they did want the legislature to define it. And then as we both said the exact same people in the legislature defined it

 

[kaz]

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.

I don't think you're going to get a nice thread on birtherism

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Liberoids went batshit crazy when questions were asked about Obumbler's place of birth.

Now, still butthurt over that, they figure that they can "turn the tables" and seek some ironic solace by "challenging" Ted Cruz's Constitutional eligibility to be President -- since Cruz WAS born in Canada.

But then, they whinny and bray and whine and cry when their specious "arguments" get roundly, soundly, consistently and easily refuted.

It's actually funny to watch.

 

[Faun]

Liberoids went batshit crazy when questions were asked about Obumbler's place of birth.

Now, still butthurt over that, they figure that they can "turn the tables" and seek some ironic solace by "challenging" Ted Cruz's Constitutional eligibility to be President -- since Cruz WAS born in Canada.

But then, they whinny and bray and whine and cry when their specious "arguments" get roundly, soundly, consistently and easily refuted.

It's actually funny to watch.

Oh? Who on the left is whining about Cruz's eligibility. Every thread I've seen here on the subject has been started by a rightard.

 

[Faun]

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

Again, you reveal your own homo-erotic fantasies. You're like a flasher -- you want people to know about your proclivities.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Liberoids went batshit crazy when questions were asked about Obumbler's place of birth.

Now, still butthurt over that, they figure that they can "turn the tables" and seek some ironic solace by "challenging" Ted Cruz's Constitutional eligibility to be President -- since Cruz WAS born in Canada.

But then, they whinny and bray and whine and cry when their specious "arguments" get roundly, soundly, consistently and easily refuted.

It's actually funny to watch.

Oh? Who on the left is whining about Cruz's eligibility. Every thread I've seen here on the subject has been started by a rightard.

Selective vision by you. No surprise there, shitbird.

 

[dcraelin]

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

Exactly. There are only two kinds of citizenship recognized by US law: natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind.

Cruz was a citizen at birth. Which means he's a natural born citizen.

noooOOOooo you are deliberately twisting it and ignoring the evidence I gave from Wikipedia ....now a later legislative act perhaps tried to do twist it too...doesn't change the original facts.

the requirement for presidency requires natural born, and was there before the legislative act

and u cant be natural born if born in Canada

 

[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

Says who?

says anyone with a ounce of common sense

Translation: you can't back up your own claim.

keep sending up the flag.....but its simple reading...backed by Jay's letter to Washington

 

[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..

thats cause it didnt think it had to explain every damn word it put in the document.....they assumed people would use a bit of common sense.............

What else COULD IT have meant.......... was it just decoration? ....that wouldnt follow rules of Constitutional interpretation

 

[Faun]

Liberoids went batshit crazy when questions were asked about Obumbler's place of birth.

Now, still butthurt over that, they figure that they can "turn the tables" and seek some ironic solace by "challenging" Ted Cruz's Constitutional eligibility to be President -- since Cruz WAS born in Canada.

But then, they whinny and bray and whine and cry when their specious "arguments" get roundly, soundly, consistently and easily refuted.

It's actually funny to watch.

Oh? Who on the left is whining about Cruz's eligibility. Every thread I've seen here on the subject has been started by a rightard.

Selective vision by you. No surprise there, shitbird.

Does this mean you have no names? On this forum alone I can name a dozen rightards. You can't name one?

 

[Faun]

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

Says who?

says anyone with a ounce of common sense

Translation: you can't back up your own claim.

keep sending up the flag.....but its simple reading...backed by Jay's letter to Washington

You've made it clear -- you don't understand Jay's letter.

 

[Faun]

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..

thats cause it didnt think it had to explain every damn word it put in the document.....they assumed people would use a bit of common sense.............

What else COULD IT have meant.......... was it just decoration? ....that wouldnt follow rules of Constitutional interpretation

It could mean born a U.S. citizen.

 

[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.

"followed place of birth"............so that means if born in Canada you are NOT natural born

The founders had to "clarify" what they said in the Constitution huh...........hmmm...maybe they just changed their mind and didnt want tot go thru the correct legal procedures....

 

[hipeter924]

Would never want to be President, let alone a politician due to the lousy hours, and the reality that you can do very little to 'fix America' in such an office.

If I did, I could probably meet the criteria. The definition states 'natural born', meaning obtaining US citizenship at birth. My mother was only a US citizen, and held no other citizenship at the time.

I think the clause might only be problematic if you are born to a parent of a current belligerent/enemy nation, as well as a US citizen. At that, the Supreme Court might cry foul.

Though, this has all never been tested before, and I would think that Ted Cruz would be eligible - just barely.

 

[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]

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

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

I think your mistaking me for someone else......or you are defliberately confusing the question

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.

your just deliberately confusing the issue............the ark case is about citizenship in general....not about requirements to be president ...Jays letter shows their intentions......if they changed their minds............they needed to change the Constitution.........which they didnt

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

Exactly. There are only two kinds of citizenship recognized by US law: natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind.

Cruz was a citizen at birth. Which means he's a natural born citizen.

noooOOOooo you are deliberately twisting it and ignoring the evidence I gave from Wikipedia ....now a later legislative act perhaps tried to do twist it too...doesn't change the original facts.

the requirement for presidency requires natural born, and was there before the legislative act

and u cant be natural born if born in Canada

Wrong. One can absolutely be a natural born citizen and yet born in Canada.

 

[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..

thats cause it didnt think it had to explain every damn word it put in the document.....they assumed people would use a bit of common sense.............

What else COULD IT have meant.......... was it just decoration? ....that wouldnt follow rules of Constitutional interpretation

It could mean born a U.S. citizen.

you are just undermining the thread...........your not serious...................get lost