is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[dcraelin]

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.

I accept the can grant CITIZENSHIP legislatively.......they cannot bypass the Constitutions presidential requirements.....no matter how much they wanted too.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

 

[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?

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

The Ark case affirms the definition of "natural born citizen" is in question and has never been resolved in terms of a U.S. citizen whose parents are not both citizens of the U.S. at the time of their birth.

 

[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

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

Your surrender is noted.

 

[dcraelin]

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

Your surrender is noted.

YOU appear now to be arguing on my side.....but saying I'm wrong......what a hoot......riotously funny....

take you pathetic sense of humor to another thread .....I may just have to ignore you

 

[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

The Ark case affirms the definition of "natural born citizen" is in question and has never been resolved in terms of a U.S. citizen whose parents are not both citizens of the U.S. at the time of their birth.

it is not in question in regard to the presidential part, it cant be, no other way to look at it.

but for sophistic word games, deliberately designed to confuse the issue, you are now ignored

 

[Faun]

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

Your surrender is noted.

YOU appear now to be arguing on my side.....but saying I'm wrong......what a hoot......riotously funny....

take you pathetic sense of humor to another thread .....I may just have to ignore you

I'm arguing your side? I didn't realize your argument was anyone who is a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth is a natural born citizen? Doesn't matter where they're born.

 

[Faun]

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.

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

The Ark case affirms the definition of "natural born citizen" is in question and has never been resolved in terms of a U.S. citizen whose parents are not both citizens of the U.S. at the time of their birth.

it is not in question in regard to the presidential part, it cant be, no other way to look at it.

but for sophistic word games, deliberately designed to confuse the issue, you are now ignored

You should ignore me because you are proving yourself to be a dumbfuck and you can't keep up with me so your only alternative is to run from me.

Whether you comprehend it or not, Wong Kim Ark affirmed the doubts about the definition of "natural born citizen."

How the fuck do you conclude that "natural born citizen" has no meaning in terms of presidential eligibility??

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

Repeating your mistake doesn't serve to correct it. You remain wrong.

The Constitution itself does not define "Natural Born Citizen," (NBC) but history makes it clear what the purpose was. I cannot provide you with anything that you would accept and space limits and time limits exist.

Nonetheless, the PURPOSE of the NBC clause was to make sure that some foreign born citizen (who perhaps had some claim to also being a US citizen) with only slight allegiance to the USA could become a danger to the Republic by becoming President.

Ted Cruz, by contrast, was a dual U.S. / Canuck citizen because he was, by happenstance, born on Canadian soil. But his MOTHER was a U.S. by God citizen. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen AT birth. And THAT, my friend, is what is actually meant by NBC: A person who at birth is a US citizen and whose allegiance is to the USA.

Born in late December 1970 and moved with family to USA in 1974. He has been not just a U.S. citizen at birth, but a resident here since before he was 4 years old.

The claim that he is somehow ineligible is just plain silly. Nothing more.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You will find that it is always pointless to try to discuss anything with Fauny. He is a Fauny.

 

[Faun]

You will find that it is always pointless to try to discuss anything with Fauny. He is a Fauny.

Pretty funny since we're both saying the same thing about Cruz and the term, "natural born citizen.'

Where we differ on this issue is that you still haven't shown who on the left thinks Cruz is ineligible due to being born in Canada. Everyone in this thread alone arguing that position is on the right.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You will find that it is always pointless to try to discuss anything with Fauny. He is a Fauny.

Pretty funny since we're both saying the same thing about Cruz and the term, "natural born citizen.'

Where we differ on this issue is that you still haven't shown who on the left thinks Cruz is ineligible due to being born in Canada. Everyone in this thread alone arguing that position is on the right.

Look at Fauny. He now wants to pretend that this is the only thread that has ever mentioned the "issue" of Ted Cruz' eligibility to be President.

 

[washamericom]

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

well it didn't start out as a birther thread. the reason i know that is because it's not swiftly conveyed to conspiracy. that may be changing too. can't keep this shit a secret forever.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

Repeating your mistake doesn't serve to correct it. You remain wrong.

The Constitution itself does not define "Natural Born Citizen," (NBC) but history makes it clear what the purpose was. I cannot provide you with anything that you would accept and space limits and time limits exist.

Nonetheless, the PURPOSE of the NBC clause was to make sure that some foreign born citizen (who perhaps had some claim to also being a US citizen) with only slight allegiance to the USA could become a danger to the Republic by becoming President.

Ted Cruz, by contrast, was a dual U.S. / Canuck citizen because he was, by happenstance, born on Canadian soil. But his MOTHER was a U.S. by God citizen. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen AT birth. And THAT, my friend, is what is actually meant by NBC: A person who at birth is a US citizen and whose allegiance is to the USA.

Born in late December 1970 and moved with family to USA in 1974. He has been not just a U.S. citizen at birth, but a resident here since before he was 4 years old.

The claim that he is somehow ineligible is just plain silly. Nothing more.

respectfully...it didnt need to be defined..... it was apparent/common sense..... the later need to "clarify" with legislation" proves that in itself. .....also Jays letter.....also the additional clause that comes after, granting eligibility to those citizens at the time of adoption......

the confusion arises mainly I think from the word naturalization.... Granting citizenship itself is possible thru legislation( at least in some instances) ....granting birth upon US soil is not...

now it may seem unfair/ silly ...not really getting at the problem as the founders saw it.....but it was written.....and Cruz is ineligible...or should be.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

Repeating your mistake doesn't serve to correct it. You remain wrong.

The Constitution itself does not define "Natural Born Citizen," (NBC) but history makes it clear what the purpose was. I cannot provide you with anything that you would accept and space limits and time limits exist.

Nonetheless, the PURPOSE of the NBC clause was to make sure that some foreign born citizen (who perhaps had some claim to also being a US citizen) with only slight allegiance to the USA could become a danger to the Republic by becoming President.

Ted Cruz, by contrast, was a dual U.S. / Canuck citizen because he was, by happenstance, born on Canadian soil. But his MOTHER was a U.S. by God citizen. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen AT birth. And THAT, my friend, is what is actually meant by NBC: A person who at birth is a US citizen and whose allegiance is to the USA.

Born in late December 1970 and moved with family to USA in 1974. He has been not just a U.S. citizen at birth, but a resident here since before he was 4 years old.

The claim that he is somehow ineligible is just plain silly. Nothing more.

respectfully...it didnt need to be defined..... it was apparent/common sense..... the later need to "clarify" with legislation" proves that in itself. .....also Jays letter.....also the additional clause that comes after, granting eligibility to those citizens at the time of adoption......

the confusion arises mainly I think from the word naturalization.... Granting citizenship itself is possible thru legislation( at least in some instances) ....granting birth upon US soil is not...

now it may seem unfair/ silly ...not really getting at the problem as the founders saw it.....but it was written.....and Cruz is ineligible...or should be.....

Well, wrong. Of course it needed to be clarified since what was pretty apparent at the time became less clear to us down the road.

In any event, it is obvious that a person who is an American AT BIRTH is an American. Even if born by Cesarian section, he or she is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Cruz is absolutely eligible by the proper definition and understanding of the NBC clause.

 

[Faun]

You will find that it is always pointless to try to discuss anything with Fauny. He is a Fauny.

Pretty funny since we're both saying the same thing about Cruz and the term, "natural born citizen.'

Where we differ on this issue is that you still haven't shown who on the left thinks Cruz is ineligible due to being born in Canada. Everyone in this thread alone arguing that position is on the right.

Look at Fauny. He now wants to pretend that this is the only thread that has ever mentioned the "issue" of Ted Cruz' eligibility to be President.

Who said that? You really are nuts. I challenged to name names. I never restricted it to this thread.

You ran like a pussy.

Which, btw, answered for you.

 

[Faun]

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.

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

Repeating your mistake doesn't serve to correct it. You remain wrong.

The Constitution itself does not define "Natural Born Citizen," (NBC) but history makes it clear what the purpose was. I cannot provide you with anything that you would accept and space limits and time limits exist.

Nonetheless, the PURPOSE of the NBC clause was to make sure that some foreign born citizen (who perhaps had some claim to also being a US citizen) with only slight allegiance to the USA could become a danger to the Republic by becoming President.

Ted Cruz, by contrast, was a dual U.S. / Canuck citizen because he was, by happenstance, born on Canadian soil. But his MOTHER was a U.S. by God citizen. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen AT birth. And THAT, my friend, is what is actually meant by NBC: A person who at birth is a US citizen and whose allegiance is to the USA.

Born in late December 1970 and moved with family to USA in 1974. He has been not just a U.S. citizen at birth, but a resident here since before he was 4 years old.

The claim that he is somehow ineligible is just plain silly. Nothing more.

respectfully...it didnt need to be defined..... it was apparent/common sense..... the later need to "clarify" with legislation" proves that in itself. .....also Jays letter.....also the additional clause that comes after, granting eligibility to those citizens at the time of adoption......

the confusion arises mainly I think from the word naturalization.... Granting citizenship itself is possible thru legislation( at least in some instances) ....granting birth upon US soil is not...

now it may seem unfair/ silly ...not really getting at the problem as the founders saw it.....but it was written.....and Cruz is ineligible...or should be.....

You're still wrong. Wong Kim Ark affirmed it needs to be defined or the currently accepted definition, which is that anyone born a U.S. citizen is a "natural born citizen" remains.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

Repeating your mistake doesn't serve to correct it. You remain wrong.

The Constitution itself does not define "Natural Born Citizen," (NBC) but history makes it clear what the purpose was. I cannot provide you with anything that you would accept and space limits and time limits exist.

Nonetheless, the PURPOSE of the NBC clause was to make sure that some foreign born citizen (who perhaps had some claim to also being a US citizen) with only slight allegiance to the USA could become a danger to the Republic by becoming President.

Ted Cruz, by contrast, was a dual U.S. / Canuck citizen because he was, by happenstance, born on Canadian soil. But his MOTHER was a U.S. by God citizen. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen AT birth. And THAT, my friend, is what is actually meant by NBC: A person who at birth is a US citizen and whose allegiance is to the USA.

Born in late December 1970 and moved with family to USA in 1974. He has been not just a U.S. citizen at birth, but a resident here since before he was 4 years old.

The claim that he is somehow ineligible is just plain silly. Nothing more.

respectfully...it didnt need to be defined..... it was apparent/common sense..... the later need to "clarify" with legislation" proves that in itself. .....also Jays letter.....also the additional clause that comes after, granting eligibility to those citizens at the time of adoption......

the confusion arises mainly I think from the word naturalization.... Granting citizenship itself is possible thru legislation( at least in some instances) ....granting birth upon US soil is not...

now it may seem unfair/ silly ...not really getting at the problem as the founders saw it.....but it was written.....and Cruz is ineligible...or should be.....

Well, wrong. Of course it needed to be clarified since what was pretty apparent at the time became less clear to us down the road.

In any event, it is obvious that a person who is an American AT BIRTH is an American. Even if born by Cesarian section, he or she is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Cruz is absolutely eligible by the proper definition and understanding of the NBC clause.

I dont think they were "clarifying " at all they were attempting to change...

a person can become a citizen at birth....if Congress grants them that right.....Which apparently they have.....havent looked into that real closely....but there are additional regulations to be president.

Jays letter, and the circumstances around the writing,as shown in the Wikipedia article, and the clause afterward...prove that it could only mean what was apparent....a person had to be a citizen...and born within the US. to be eligible for the presidency.

This is the last word I'll say on it for a while as we seem to be talking in circles.....

 

[Faun]

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

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

Repeating your mistake doesn't serve to correct it. You remain wrong.

The Constitution itself does not define "Natural Born Citizen," (NBC) but history makes it clear what the purpose was. I cannot provide you with anything that you would accept and space limits and time limits exist.

Nonetheless, the PURPOSE of the NBC clause was to make sure that some foreign born citizen (who perhaps had some claim to also being a US citizen) with only slight allegiance to the USA could become a danger to the Republic by becoming President.

Ted Cruz, by contrast, was a dual U.S. / Canuck citizen because he was, by happenstance, born on Canadian soil. But his MOTHER was a U.S. by God citizen. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen AT birth. And THAT, my friend, is what is actually meant by NBC: A person who at birth is a US citizen and whose allegiance is to the USA.

Born in late December 1970 and moved with family to USA in 1974. He has been not just a U.S. citizen at birth, but a resident here since before he was 4 years old.

The claim that he is somehow ineligible is just plain silly. Nothing more.

respectfully...it didnt need to be defined..... it was apparent/common sense..... the later need to "clarify" with legislation" proves that in itself. .....also Jays letter.....also the additional clause that comes after, granting eligibility to those citizens at the time of adoption......

the confusion arises mainly I think from the word naturalization.... Granting citizenship itself is possible thru legislation( at least in some instances) ....granting birth upon US soil is not...

now it may seem unfair/ silly ...not really getting at the problem as the founders saw it.....but it was written.....and Cruz is ineligible...or should be.....

Well, wrong. Of course it needed to be clarified since what was pretty apparent at the time became less clear to us down the road.

In any event, it is obvious that a person who is an American AT BIRTH is an American. Even if born by Cesarian section, he or she is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Cruz is absolutely eligible by the proper definition and understanding of the NBC clause.

I dont think they were "clarifying " at all they were attempting to change...

a person can become a citizen at birth....if Congress grants them that right.....Which apparently they have.....havent looked into that real closely....but there are additional regulations to be president.

Jays letter, and the circumstances around the writing,as shown in the Wikipedia article, and the clause afterward...prove that it could only mean what was apparent....a person had to be a citizen...and born within the US. to be eligible for the presidency.

This is the last word I'll say on it for a while as we seem to be talking in circles.....

The letter your referencing doesn't state a person has to be born within the U.S. to be president.

As I stated earlier, you have no clue what that letter means.

You reaffirm that in this post of yours.

Keep hiding!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

nope not by original definition.....it just dont make common sense ...you can be granted citizenship (maybe) havent looked into that real close, but you cant be a "natural born citizen"

Repeating your mistake doesn't serve to correct it. You remain wrong.

The Constitution itself does not define "Natural Born Citizen," (NBC) but history makes it clear what the purpose was. I cannot provide you with anything that you would accept and space limits and time limits exist.

Nonetheless, the PURPOSE of the NBC clause was to make sure that some foreign born citizen (who perhaps had some claim to also being a US citizen) with only slight allegiance to the USA could become a danger to the Republic by becoming President.

Ted Cruz, by contrast, was a dual U.S. / Canuck citizen because he was, by happenstance, born on Canadian soil. But his MOTHER was a U.S. by God citizen. Thus, he was a U.S. citizen AT birth. And THAT, my friend, is what is actually meant by NBC: A person who at birth is a US citizen and whose allegiance is to the USA.

Born in late December 1970 and moved with family to USA in 1974. He has been not just a U.S. citizen at birth, but a resident here since before he was 4 years old.

The claim that he is somehow ineligible is just plain silly. Nothing more.

respectfully...it didnt need to be defined..... it was apparent/common sense..... the later need to "clarify" with legislation" proves that in itself. .....also Jays letter.....also the additional clause that comes after, granting eligibility to those citizens at the time of adoption......

the confusion arises mainly I think from the word naturalization.... Granting citizenship itself is possible thru legislation( at least in some instances) ....granting birth upon US soil is not...

now it may seem unfair/ silly ...not really getting at the problem as the founders saw it.....but it was written.....and Cruz is ineligible...or should be.....

Well, wrong. Of course it needed to be clarified since what was pretty apparent at the time became less clear to us down the road.

In any event, it is obvious that a person who is an American AT BIRTH is an American. Even if born by Cesarian section, he or she is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Cruz is absolutely eligible by the proper definition and understanding of the NBC clause.

I dont think they were "clarifying " at all they were attempting to change...

a person can become a citizen at birth....if Congress grants them that right.....Which apparently they have.....havent looked into that real closely....but there are additional regulations to be president.

Jays letter, and the circumstances around the writing,as shown in the Wikipedia article, and the clause afterward...prove that it could only mean what was apparent....a person had to be a citizen...and born within the US. to be eligible for the presidency.

This is the last word I'll say on it for a while as we seem to be talking in circles.....

I agree that we are talking in circles and I disagree with your understanding of what a NBC is. (We can't both be right, alas.)

But at least you have taken the trouble to understand the issue. Nice chatting with you.