is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Faun]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

I dont see how you can keep saying naturalization is natural born

I've said no such thing. In fact, I've said quite the opposite:

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

A citizen at birth is not 'naturalized'.

....if the naturalization act of 1790 said that....it was wrong....probably just a mistake in wording.....regardless....they didn't have the ability to change the Constitution by legislation.

Says you. Yet 8 of the 11 members of the committee on eligibility requirements for the President in the Constitutional convention were members of the first congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act.

They never objected to extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.

I don't consider you citing you to be an authoritative source on the 'will of the founders'.

and quit up "follows place of birth" then .....it hurts your own argument.

Not at all. As the English common law definition of natural born has no effect on later legislative acts that extended the meaning of natural born. My argument is as simple as 'before and after'.

and this is the last thing I will say on the subject to you...you have proven yourself impervious to logic

Says you, citing you. And your source kinda sucks.

They also changed the verbiage in the Naturalization Act of 1795 to change "natural born citizen" to "citizen."

Yup. Demonstrating elegantly that natural born status is definitely within the influence of US statutory law. As the 1st and 3rd congress extended and retracted the meaning.

It still has not been defined since it was removed in 1795. Only the U.S.S.C. or a constitutional amendment can define it. Barring that, the currently employed definition is anyone born a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

Dual citizenship isn't recognized by the US. So under US law, no citizen could have dual citizenship.

Thus, your hypothetical has no relevance to our system of law. And our system of law is the only one that matters in determining natural born citizenship.

huh...

Yet Cruz dropped his Canadian citizenship. Which > IF < you're correct, doing so would be a waste of time.

Hmm... That doesn't bode well for the viability of your reasoning.

What's more, 'Dual Loyalties' also has no relevance to US Legal Code... yet Dual Loyalties is precisely the reason for the Framers to require the President of the US to have come to his citizenship, as a result which naturally came from the joining of one male US Citizen, joining with one female US Citizen.

Now, since that is an irrepressible fact... explain to the board, how a person with intrinsic loyalty to two nations as a result of their BIRTH.... would not be the subject of that very foundational CONCERN.

 

[Faun]

Sadly, having been born to a foreign national father, obama's birth did NOT naturally produce a US Citizen free of dual loyalties. Which is the PURPOSE OF THE STANDARD: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. English common law recognizes PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark v. US recognized PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status. The dictionary recognizes PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status.

Natural born:

1.native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

And when you follow native born you get this:

Native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Smiling.....but you know better than all of them, huh?

But your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your tell already? You didn't make it 5 posts before starting in with your bizarre 'summary declarations of victory' as you run.

Well that was easy.

Dictionary.com utilizes contributors definitions as a resource.

And actual Dictionary (Webster's Collegiate 2015 unabridged) defines Natural-Born: having a specified status or character by birth <a natural-born describer with a memory for details — Ernestine Evans><she's a natural-born nurse — Winston Churchill>; especially : having the legal status of citizen or subject <no person except a natural-born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president — U.S. Constitution>.

The word 'native' was in common use in the late 18th century and where the word 'native' would have been relevant, it would have been used.

'Wong' was not considering eligibility for President, thus is irrelevant to discussions which are... that the decision used the phrase, is irrelevant.

And with regard to British Common Law, the phrase being relevant to BEING BORN WITHIN THE BORDER IMPLIES THAT THE BIRTH WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE LIVIG WITHIN THE BORDER: OKA: SUBJECTS OF THE BRITISH CROWN, which we can extrapolate out to US Citizens, where, WHEN THE PURPOSE OF THE PHRASE IS CONSIDERED: "DUAL LOYALTIES"... Your interpretation FAILS AGAIN!

Bullshit. Any court decisions about "natural born citizens" are completely relevant since that is a requirement for a presidential candidate to be eligible for the office.

 

[Faun]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

Dual citizenship isn't recognized by the US. So under US law, no citizen could have dual citizenship.

Thus, your hypothetical has no relevance to our system of law. And our system of law is the only one that matters in determining natural born citizenship.

huh...

Yet Cruz dropped his Canadian citizenship. Which > IF < you're correct, doing so would be a waste of time.

Hmm... That doesn't bode well for the viability of your reasoning.

What's more, 'Dual Loyalties' also has no relevance to US Legal Code... yet Dual Loyalties is precisely the reason for the Framers to require the President of the US to have come to his citizenship, as a result which naturally came from the joining of one male US Citizen, joining with one female US Citizen.

Now, since that is an irrepressible fact... explain to the board, how a person with intrinsic loyalty to two nations as a result of their BIRTH.... would not be the subject of that very foundational CONCERN.

Revoking his Canadian citizenship was not a water of time. He did so to garner more votes from the idiotic right.

 

[Skylar]

Dictionary.com utilizes contributors definitions as a resource.

Says who? And do you have the slightest evidence that dictionary.com's definition of natural born is a 'contributor's definition'?

If so, present it. Otherwise, you're simply ignoring any source that contradicts you.

Sigh...again.

And actual Dictionary defines Natural-Born: having a specified status or character by birth <a natural-born describer with a memory for details — Ernestine Evans><she's a natural-born nurse — Winston Churchill>; especially : having the legal status of citizen or subject <no person except a natural-born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president — U.S. Constitution>

[/quote]

Which dictionary do you claim to be quoting? Last time you offered us a 'dictionary' definition, it turned out to be an excerpt from a Catholic theology book. And didn't tell us.

So what is your source?

Wong was not determining eligibility for President, thus is irrelevant to discussions which are... that the decision used the phrase is irrelevant.

Wong was about citizenship and how it was acquired. And it clearly found that natural born status follows place of birth:

The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Explicitly contradicting you. But you know better, huh?

Laughing....nope.

And with regard to British Common Law, the phrase being relevant to BEING BORN WITHIN THE BORDER IMPLIES THAT THE BIRTH WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE LIVIG WITHIN THE BORDER: OKA: SUBJECTS OF THE BRITISH CROWN, which we can extrapolate out to US Citizens, where, WHEN THE PURPOSE OF THE PHRASE IS CONSIDERED: "DUAL LOYALTIES"... Your interpretation FAILS AGAIN!

Laughing....nope. I again direct you to the USSC decision that you're intent on ignoring:

"Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."

Even if the child had BOTH parents who were aliens, they were still natural born. Your meaningless 'implication' nonsense is just you citing yourself again, contradicted by the source you claim to be speaking for.

And since Obama has spent almost his entire life in the US, your latest piece of imaginary innuendo fails even hypothetically.

Any other steaming piles of pseudo-legal gibberish you'd like to make up? I'd be happy to disabuse you of your misconceptions yet again.

 

[Skylar]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

Dual citizenship isn't recognized by the US. So under US law, no citizen could have dual citizenship.

Thus, your hypothetical has no relevance to our system of law. And our system of law is the only one that matters in determining natural born citizenship.

huh...

Yet Cruz dropped his Canadian citizenship. Which > IF < you're correct, doing so would be a waste of time.

Cruz has Canadian citizenship according to Canadian law. But not according to US law.

Per US law, Cruz only has US citizenship. And only our laws are relevant to issues of constitutional eligibility for the Presidency under US law.

Do you finally understand where you blundered? You're foolishly citing the laws of a foreign country as defining US legal eligibility. And foreign laws are irrelevant to natural born citizenship. Only our laws matter.

 

[Skylar]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

Dual citizenship isn't recognized by the US. So under US law, no citizen could have dual citizenship.

Thus, your hypothetical has no relevance to our system of law. And our system of law is the only one that matters in determining natural born citizenship.

huh...

Yet Cruz dropped his Canadian citizenship. Which > IF < you're correct, doing so would be a waste of time.

Hmm... That doesn't bode well for the viability of your reasoning.

What's more, 'Dual Loyalties' also has no relevance to US Legal Code... yet Dual Loyalties is precisely the reason for the Framers to require the President of the US to have come to his citizenship, as a result which naturally came from the joining of one male US Citizen, joining with one female US Citizen.

Now, since that is an irrepressible fact... explain to the board, how a person with intrinsic loyalty to two nations as a result of their BIRTH.... would not be the subject of that very foundational CONCERN.

Revoking his Canadian citizenship was not a water of time. He did so to garner more votes from the idiotic right.

Exactly. Its a pointlessly symbolic gesture that has no relevance to Cruz's eligibility to be president. His natural born US citizen status was established by his citizenship at birth.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is readily defined today, as it was when the Framers provided it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary?

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state...

With me so far?

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by human acts.

The purpose for the phrase being applied, was to establish a threshold which would preclude to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent.

Thus the requirement that the President of the United States being a citizen which resulted from the joining of one male citizen and one female citizen... .

(Now that is defining marriage too, isn't it? And the above contributor also vehemently disagrees that 'Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman', doesn't she?

There's a clue in there somewhere Reader...

What you're watching in the irrational braying of the Left here, is the perversion of human reasoning common to the deviant reasoning that causes Sexual Abnormality and which is behind the perverse notion that there is a "RIGHT" to murder the innocent child conceived through the willful behavior of the mother.

In short, it's the rising of OLD TESTAMENT EVIL... and that's truly all there is to this.

 

[Skylar]

Oh my. I forgot yet another source that Keyes has to ignore to cling to his little turd of a conspiracy theory:

President Chester Arthur. Who was born in the US to a US mother and an Irish-Canadian father. And was still eligible to be president. Adding historical precedent to the litany of sources that Keyes must ignore...for no particular reason.

1. English Common Law (cites place of birth as defining natural born status)
2. Cause and Effect (The 'parentage' definition of natural born came 2 years after the constitution).
3. The Naturalization Act of 1790 (extended natural born status to those born to US parents outside US.)
4. Historical Precedent (President Chester Arthur, whose father was Irish-Canadian)
5. The US Supreme Court (Found in Wong Kim Ark that place of birth defines natural born status).
6. The dictionary: (found that natural born is determined by place of birth)

But why would a rational person ignore any of them?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

Dual citizenship isn't recognized by the US. So under US law, no citizen could have dual citizenship.

Thus, your hypothetical has no relevance to our system of law. And our system of law is the only one that matters in determining natural born citizenship.

huh...

Yet Cruz dropped his Canadian citizenship. Which > IF < you're correct, doing so would be a waste of time.

Hmm... That doesn't bode well for the viability of your reasoning.

What's more, 'Dual Loyalties' also has no relevance to US Legal Code... yet Dual Loyalties is precisely the reason for the Framers to require the President of the US to have come to his citizenship, as a result which naturally came from the joining of one male US Citizen, joining with one female US Citizen.

Now, since that is an irrepressible fact... explain to the board, how a person with intrinsic loyalty to two nations as a result of their BIRTH.... would not be the subject of that very foundational CONCERN.

Revoking his Canadian citizenship was not a water of time. He did so to garner more votes from the idiotic right.

Exactly. Its a pointlessly symbolic gesture that has no relevance to Cruz's eligibility to be president. His natural born US citizen status was established by his citizenship at birth.

If there was no point to it, then what was the point of it?

(Reader: The Point is that there is no way in HELL that anyone could be elected while holding dual citizenship. And THAT is because, the depths of foolishness which would be attributable would be incalculable.

Understand that those who claim such is irrelevant are not US Citizens, but British Leftists, pretending to be US Citizens... which is to say those who have no sense of or kinship to American Principle, who see US Sovereignty as a threat.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is readily defined today, as it was when the Framers provided it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary?

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state...

With me so far?

And when you look up 'natural born', you get this:

Natural born:

1. native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

With native born meaning:

native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Following place of birth.

Which also matches the English Common Law definition, and the definition cited by the Supreme Court. And matches historical precedent with President Chester Arthur, eligible to be president because he was born in the US. Even though his father was Irish-Canadian.

Oh, and the Reader should be aware that Keyes just lied his ass off when claiming that Dictionary.com was contributor created. Instead, its source is Random House.

When you click on 'Cite this' link for "natural born", this is what you get:

Modern Language Association (MLA):
"natural born." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 18 Mar. 2015. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural born>.

So Keyes has no dictionary that indicates that natural born is only those born to two US parents. And the Random House dictionary explicitly contradicting Keyes and affirming that place of birth establishes natural born status.

With Keyes argument so weak, he felt compelled to LIE to justify ignoring a source that contradicts him.

If his argument had merit, Keyes wouldn't have had to lie to support it.

The purpose for the phrase being applied, was to establish a threshold which would preclude to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent.

Says you. Neither your hobbled together 'definition', nor the constitution nor the courts say any of the bullshit you just made up.

Again, Keyes....your personal opinion has no relevance to this situation. And your personal opinion is all you're offering us.

 

[Skylar]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

Dual citizenship isn't recognized by the US. So under US law, no citizen could have dual citizenship.

Thus, your hypothetical has no relevance to our system of law. And our system of law is the only one that matters in determining natural born citizenship.

huh...

Yet Cruz dropped his Canadian citizenship. Which > IF < you're correct, doing so would be a waste of time.

Hmm... That doesn't bode well for the viability of your reasoning.

What's more, 'Dual Loyalties' also has no relevance to US Legal Code... yet Dual Loyalties is precisely the reason for the Framers to require the President of the US to have come to his citizenship, as a result which naturally came from the joining of one male US Citizen, joining with one female US Citizen.

Now, since that is an irrepressible fact... explain to the board, how a person with intrinsic loyalty to two nations as a result of their BIRTH.... would not be the subject of that very foundational CONCERN.

Revoking his Canadian citizenship was not a water of time. He did so to garner more votes from the idiotic right.

Exactly. Its a pointlessly symbolic gesture that has no relevance to Cruz's eligibility to be president. His natural born US citizen status was established by his citizenship at birth.

If there was no point to it, then what was the point of it?

Symbolism and personal belief, apparently:

"Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship," Cruz said in a statement. "Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American."

Ted Cruz Taking Steps To Renounce Canadian Citizenship

You'll notice that he never mentions presidential eligibility. Nor does the law. Nor does the constitution.

That would be you, just making shit up again. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Understand that those who claim such is irrelevant are not US Citizens, but British Leftists, pretending to be US Citizens... which is to say those who have no sense of or kinship to American Principle, who see US Sovereignty as a threat.

Sigh......another batshit conspiracy theory backed by nothing?

 

[washamericom]

 

[Syriusly]

You can believe whatever you want.

Oh that's mighty white of ya. But I get the sense is that you're offering that courtesy, so that you can rationalize the absurdity that YOU 'CHOOSE" to BELIEVE.

Dr. Fukino's testimony would be accepted in any court as expert testimony by an eyewitness.

SPECIFICALLY... What are the elements essential to "Dr, Fukino's" expertise?

(Reader, you're going to see a bout of reticence suddenly strike the above cited contributor. In that the good Doctor has no 'expertise' in the relevant issues.)

The 'good doctor' was the top official in charge of Hawaii birth records- during her tenure there was no person with more authority regarding Hawaii records than she had.

Like I said- any court would accept her testimony as to have seen Barack Obama's original birth records- and that those records showed that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

As opposed to the Birther self proclaimed experts who have neither expertise or authority but just bloviate about things that they have never seen.

 

[JimH52]

In Canada....yes....

 

[Faun]

Ted Cruz

Cuban-Canadian-American

Republican candidate for president.

 

[dcraelin]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

I dont see how you can keep saying naturalization is natural born

I've said no such thing. In fact, I've said quite the opposite:

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

A citizen at birth is not 'naturalized'.

....if the naturalization act of 1790 said that....it was wrong....probably just a mistake in wording.....regardless....they didn't have the ability to change the Constitution by legislation.

Says you. Yet 8 of the 11 members of the committee on eligibility requirements for the President in the Constitutional convention were members of the first congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act.

They never objected to extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.

I don't consider you citing you to be an authoritative source on the 'will of the founders'.

and quit up "follows place of birth" then .....it hurts your own argument.

Not at all. As the English common law definition of natural born has no effect on later legislative acts that extended the meaning of natural born. My argument is as simple as 'before and after'.

and this is the last thing I will say on the subject to you...you have proven yourself impervious to logic

Says you, citing you. And your source kinda sucks.

there is a 3rd way ....at least if you insist on mutating the word naturalization...or words natural born....automatic naturalization at birth to us citizens abroad.

just because 8 of 11 were there does not mean they didnt change their minds......
and they may not have with regard to presidential requirement anyway...as a naturalization law was expected....

look at the Jay letter you dolt ....the underline of born.....the damn simple common sense definition.....the wording before Jays letter.....the clause after the natural born citizen.....even your own repeated quotation of practice within England suggest that they wanted citizens born on US soil....

 

[washamericom]

former iran guy (freedom fighter) rents a house in quebec for a year and takes (hooks up with) a swiss girlfriend... they live together until that beautiful baby is born...9 months after... they are on a weekend break...

in vermont... president ?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

So in order to make the rationalization fit, they need to hyphenate the phrase... when the Constitution has no hypephenation... "Natural Born Citizen", which Webster's Dictionary (an objective resource, which does NOT allow users to contribute and which can actually be found IN PRINT...) defines as:


1- Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

2- Born: existing as a result of birth

3- Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state...

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by human acts.

The purpose for the phrase being applied, was to establish a threshold which would preclude to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent.

Thus the requirement that the President of the United States being a citizen which resulted from the joining of one male citizen and one female citizen... .

(Now that is defining marriage too, isn't it? And the above contributor also vehemently disagrees that 'Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman', doesn't she?

There's a clue in there somewhere Reader...

 

[washamericom]

the castro brothers are finally set "a sail" by the people they have persecuted forever .

they RRRRR.... put into a boat...

but, fidel's great grand daughter is with them, about to give birth...

they make it to the florida coast where that beautiful baby is born...

so in 35 years ?? be president ??