Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Does this phrase really puzzle you?The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.Wong-Kim was not about presidential candidate eligibility. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code that you keep presenting is about congressional certification of electors. When it talks about "objections" it is talking about objections to electors. It has NOTHING to do with the eligibility of the newly-elected president! NOTHING! Congress certainly CAN NOT rule that a president is ineligible after the election.
Do you really not know what the 20th Amendment states? Here I'll post the 20th Amendment, specifically Section 3 of it.
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
The electoral college does nothing other than present who won the most electoral votes, not the majority of citizens votes. Congress, has the authority to disqualify the President elect over what they deem unqualifying, i.e.not a "natural-born" child, cheating, legal issues, etc.Does this phrase really puzzle you?The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.Wong-Kim was not about presidential candidate eligibility. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code that you keep presenting is about congressional certification of electors. When it talks about "objections" it is talking about objections to electors. It has NOTHING to do with the eligibility of the newly-elected president! NOTHING! Congress certainly CAN NOT rule that a president is ineligible after the election.
Do you really not know what the 20th Amendment states? Here I'll post the 20th Amendment, specifically Section 3 of it.
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
You're still talking out of your ass. The "qualification" to be president is the electoral vote count in this context. Nowhere do I see where it says Congress can disqualify an elected president based on eligibility to run. You are trying desperately to shoehorn that in and make it say that. The 20th Amendment gives Congress the authority to object to electors and establishes the protocol for seating of a new president. It does not say what you're claiming.
That's right it was, yet it doesn't change the fact that those children are Naturalized at birth and are not "natural-born" citizens. They receive their citizenship via jus sanguinis (derived) and are thus naturalized via Immigration and Naturalization Acts.
Where do you come up with your crap? When did I ever say Cruz couldn't run? What did I ever present that said Cruz couldn't run? I have stated Cruz isn't eligible to hold office and have proceeded to explain why via numerous credible links.
Now you claim the 20th Amendment doesn't state what it states? Are you fuckin' kidding me? Do you not understand Section 3 of the 20th Amendment? Are you denying what he 9th Circuit Court stated, that Congress has authority to deny via the 20th Amendment. Simply fuckin' WOW.
And yet you have been shown by Constitutional Law Scholars and Cruz's own Constitutional Law Professor, that says - NOPE.No, those children are natural born citizens because that's what natural born means. It's what it meant in the Articles of Confederation, pre-colonial England, in 1790, when Chester Arthur was president, when William Taft was president, When Goldwater, Romney and McCain were running for president, when Obama became president.... and it's not suddenly going to mean something different now.
Surely your not going to claim that all Constitutional Law Scholars agree with you when all you did was present one article that was destroyed by my one Constitutional Law Scholar. LMFAOFurthermore... Even IF you believe you are correct and most Constitutional experts agreed with you (they don't).... you STILL can't avert Ted Cruz at this point. To do so would be a disenfranchisement of every person who has voted for Cruz. The court is simply never going to disenfranchise millions of voters. For that very reason, the SCOTUS will rely on the Political Question Doctrine and decline a ruling.
Again the only way for the SCOTUS to even here this case would be through the DC courts, per the 9th Circuit. A person first must have standing, and at this point it is pretty much past that, now only Congress can deny him if he were to somehow miraculously become the President elect.You young kids today, heads full of mush and too stupid to learn. SMFHSo.... IF you want to turn yourself into a flaming nutjob like the Birthers over Obama, you can do that... it's not going to ever make any difference but you're free to be a flaming nutjob in America.
Which past candidates running for president were born in Canada?Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.
*sigh* Cruz is a natural born US citizen, his mother is a citizen who gave birth to him in Canada. There have been numerous instances regarding this very issue and the courts have NEVER revoked a candidacy on this basis... EVER. This "issue" is a non-starter.
It's not my opinion, it's a known fact. Just because a state allows you on the ballot does not mean you are also eligible to hold office.You continue to think that eligible to run is different from eligible to serve and that is an asinine opinion.
So the 9th Circuit doesn't really know what they are saying? SMFHI understand Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment is talking about congressional approval of electoral votes. It has zero to do with the qualifications of a person to hold the office of president.
Those 5 kids could derive US Citizenship from their father if he were a US Citizen living in Mexico. They would not be "natural-born" citizens because they receive their status via Congressional INA's. They would have to provide proof the father was a US Citizen, they would also have to live within the US for a specified time prior to a specified age, otherwise their citizenship status is denied. And if their citizenship can be denied for failing to meet the requirements, how the fuck are they "natural-born" citizens? HINT: Cruz falls under the same question. LMFAOWhich past candidates running for president were born in Canada?Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.
*sigh* Cruz is a natural born US citizen, his mother is a citizen who gave birth to him in Canada. There have been numerous instances regarding this very issue and the courts have NEVER revoked a candidacy on this basis... EVER. This "issue" is a non-starter.
Imagine American born Mexican goes to Mexico and has 5 kids with a Mexican woman in mexico. You telling me those 5 kids are American? Fuck no
So Cruz is not natural born. You have to be. We all learned this in school.Those 5 kids could derive US Citizenship from their father if he were a US Citizen living in Mexico. They would not be "natural-born" citizens because they receive their status via Congressional INA's. They would have to provide proof the father was a US Citizen, they would also have to live within the US for a specified time prior to a specified age, otherwise their citizenship status is denied.Which past candidates running for president were born in Canada?Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.
*sigh* Cruz is a natural born US citizen, his mother is a citizen who gave birth to him in Canada. There have been numerous instances regarding this very issue and the courts have NEVER revoked a candidacy on this basis... EVER. This "issue" is a non-starter.
Imagine American born Mexican goes to Mexico and has 5 kids with a Mexican woman in mexico. You telling me those 5 kids are American? Fuck no
EggFuknZactlySo Cruz is not natural born. You have to be. We all learned this in school.Those 5 kids could derive US Citizenship from their father if he were a US Citizen living in Mexico. They would not be "natural-born" citizens because they receive their status via Congressional INA's. They would have to provide proof the father was a US Citizen, they would also have to live within the US for a specified time prior to a specified age, otherwise their citizenship status is denied.Which past candidates running for president were born in Canada?Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.
*sigh* Cruz is a natural born US citizen, his mother is a citizen who gave birth to him in Canada. There have been numerous instances regarding this very issue and the courts have NEVER revoked a candidacy on this basis... EVER. This "issue" is a non-starter.
Imagine American born Mexican goes to Mexico and has 5 kids with a Mexican woman in mexico. You telling me those 5 kids are American? Fuck no
Republicans didn't think being a Mormon mattered to voters and it did. Ted not being born here matters. But by all means run him please
And yet you have been shown by Constitutional Law Scholars and Cruz's own Constitutional Law Professor, that says - NOPE.
There is no disenfranchisement of the voters if Congress disqualifies him for not being a "natural-born" citizen.
Again the only way for the SCOTUS to even here this case would be through the DC courts, per the 9th Circuit. A person first must have standing, and at this point it is pretty much past that
SNL just did an opening monologue making fun of trump the reporters both agreed as crazy and horrible as trump is he's still better than Ted Cruz. LolEggFuknZactlySo Cruz is not natural born. You have to be. We all learned this in school.Those 5 kids could derive US Citizenship from their father if he were a US Citizen living in Mexico. They would not be "natural-born" citizens because they receive their status via Congressional INA's. They would have to provide proof the father was a US Citizen, they would also have to live within the US for a specified time prior to a specified age, otherwise their citizenship status is denied.Which past candidates running for president were born in Canada?Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.
*sigh* Cruz is a natural born US citizen, his mother is a citizen who gave birth to him in Canada. There have been numerous instances regarding this very issue and the courts have NEVER revoked a candidacy on this basis... EVER. This "issue" is a non-starter.
Imagine American born Mexican goes to Mexico and has 5 kids with a Mexican woman in mexico. You telling me those 5 kids are American? Fuck no
Republicans didn't think being a Mormon mattered to voters and it did. Ted not being born here matters. But by all means run him please
OOPS!, possible BOSS grammar Nazi card usage coming next.
He said via the "Originalists" perspective he wouldn't qualify. He stated it was murky and unsettled, because Cruz claims it is clear and settled, the same as you have claimed. Tribe concludes with: Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”But he didn't say NOPE. He said "murky and untested" and I've addressed that.
Congress can most certainly disqualify him. Read the Fucking 20th Amendment.Congress can't disqualify him. You cited the portion of the constitution dealing with congressional objection to electoral votes. You never supported the argument they can disqualify a president after he is elected
for the SCOTUS to even here this case
:yawn:Again illustrating your level of education for the whole world to see. 7th grade level at best.
I know exactly what it is, and it has yet to have been used since no Cruz eligibility case has made it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS could also decide to hear the case as they have decided to hear other types of "Political Questions" in the past. gofigureSCOTUS won't hear this case because of the Political Question Doctrine. Why are you simply ignoring the Political Question Doctrine? Do you not know what that is? Go look it up and you can learn something.
Again, Congress can disqualify Cruz for not being a "natural-born" citizen, or if someone can prove they have standing to question his citizenship status and they go through the correct courts, it could happen. The likeliness of Cruz becoming the President elect is about 1Billion:1. So, at that point the issue will remain unresolved.You're right, we are past the time when someone could have standing to contest the Cruz candidacy. That needs to happen before ballots are printed.... certainly before people have voted. So you're spending all this time and energy to argue with me about something that just isn't ever going to happen.
Why not complete your quoting of your link?Political Question Doctrine
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government.
This basically means that SCOTUS won't get involved in Congress disqualifying Cruz from being the President elect.Political Question Doctrine
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
He said via the "Originalists" perspective he wouldn't qualify. He stated it was murky and unsettled, because Cruz claims it is clear and settled, the same as you have claimed. Tribe concludes with: Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”
Why not complete your quoting of your link?
This basically means that SCOTUS won't get involved in Congress disqualifying Cruz from being the President elect.
I know exactly what it is, and it has yet to have been used since no Cruz eligibility case has made it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS could also decide to hear the case as they have decided to hear other types of "Political Questions" in the past. gofigure
SMFH You demonstrate you haven't the first clue as to what an "Originalist" is.He said that based on the fact that the originalists were sexists who didn't believe women were equal to men. Obama wouldn't be eligible either because he is a black man. We've changed those parts of the constitution since then.
LMFAO Maybe the courts should simply take up the question? Since this is the first Canadian/Naturalized US Citizen trying to become the US President, maybe he should be the test case?Look... maybe we need to put ISIS terrorism, the national debt and all other issues on the back burner for six months and have Congress deliberate the meaning of "natural born" in this particular clause? Maybe that's the only way to silence idiot morons like you in every goddamn election? Why don't you lobby whoever your candidate is and have them make this their central campaign theme... let's see if the rest of America is as concerned about it as you are?
In all the cases it has mattered where the possible President elect was born, and in all the cases both parents were US Citizens, and in almost all the cases the children were born in US Territories, with the exception of Romney being born in Mexico. Romney dropped out before anything could be debated. Nobody is nit-picking people not liked based on geography, Cruz was literally a Canadian National and Citizen, a foreigner, whom The intention of the natural born clause was to ensure foreigners or foreign nationals wouldn't take over leadership of our nation.For me, it's not that big of a deal... if you were born to a US citizen, you are a natural born US citizen... doesn't matter WHERE you were born. We live in a jet-set age, people travel all around the world and women have little control over when it comes time for their baby to deliver. The intention of the natural born clause was to ensure foreigners or foreign nationals wouldn't take over leadership of our nation. It was not so that you can nit pick and disqualify US citizens you don't like on the basis of geography.
Exactly, the question at hand could be determined to be political or it could be determined to not be, the question being if he is a "natural-born" citizen or not.Because the remainder is just examples of specific cases regarding political questions, none of which pertain to the political question at hand.
Congress can disqualify him based on their interpretation of natural-born. It is what the 9th Circuit stated, are you claiming the 9th Circuit are idiots? SMFHCongress could only disqualify his electoral votes on the basis of their legitimacy as electors. There is no provision for them to disqualify a president elect on the basis of his qualifications to hold the office. You've not shown that, you've not proven that and you can't.
