Why Ted Cruz Will NOT Win A Contested Convention

[Liquid Reigns]

Do you also not comprehend the difference between a party primary and an election? You are a hot mess when it comes to your civics knowledge. Parties do not nominate candidates through a purely democratic process and presidents aren't elected through a purely democratic process.... that's generally what people mean when you hear them say we are a republic and not a democracy. But party primaries have nothing to do with president's-elect and congressional powers.

You're a fucking genius.:yawn:

Disenfranchisement is what happens when the legitimate vote is ignored and that applies in your fantasy scenario. It's not applicable in the Electoral Process (or the delegate process) because that is the process. The votes are not ignored, they are the basis for determining the electors.

And Congress can disqualify the President elect if they decide he is not a "natural-born citizen".

 

[Boss]

Yes, SCOTUS would stand mute if Congress disqualifies Cruz if he were to become the President elect. Political Question Doctrine, SCOTUS would not touch the issue.

At that point, it would no longer be a political question, it would be a constitutional question and SCOTUS would rule that Congress overstepped. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to disqualify an elected president on the basis of eligibility to run after he is elected.

 

[Boss]

You're a fucking genius.

That's what the Mensans tell me.

And Congress can disqualify the President elect if they decide he is not a "natural-born citizen".

Nope... they can't.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I've read the 20th and it says nothing about Congress disqualifying an elected president on the basis of his eligibility to run. It says not a damn word about Congress getting to decide what a "natural born" citizen is.

That's because Congress simply has the ability to disqualify the President elect for not meeting the requirements to hold office.

We've already discussed the case you keep citing about what Cruz's own camp said... they are talking about PRIOR to a candidate running, not AFTER.

You've made claims against what I have shown, nothing was discussed, you just keep jumping up and down exclaiming that you are right. :yawn:

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Yes, SCOTUS would stand mute if Congress disqualifies Cruz if he were to become the President elect. Political Question Doctrine, SCOTUS would not touch the issue.

At that point, it would no longer be a political question, it would be a constitutional question and SCOTUS would rule that Congress overstepped. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to disqualify an elected president on the basis of eligibility to run after he is elected.

Nope, SCOTUS wouldn't touch it. Congress has the ability to disqualify, 20th Amendment.

Yes Congress does have the power to disqualify the President elect based on a number of requirements in order to be eligible to hold office.

 

[Syriusly]

An interesting and well researched article- but here conclusion is rather contradictory
She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

She states in Section C.:
The very existence of this provision demonstrates that the early American
notion of “natural born citizen” adopted the English common law only and did
not include the eighteenth-century statutes. If it had been otherwise, there
would have been no need for the 1790 statute because the children covered
would have been natural born under then-current English law. As one
nineteenth-century senator stated: “[T]he founders of this Government made
no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of naturalborn
citizens.”105
Moreover, the legislative history suggests that the first Congress intended to
effectuate a change in the law, not merely to declare the status quo.106 On
February 3, 1790, Congress began debating a draft bill that provided for
naturalization.107 The legislature acknowledged the common law principle that
“[a]n alien has no right to hold lands in any country [but his own].”108
However, there was no real opposition to “let[ting] foreigners, on easy terms,
be admitted to hold lands” in America.109 One of Congress’ greatest concerns
was the prospect of all those immigrants pushing their way into the budding
nation’s new government.
....
In sum, the debate focused on how to balance properly an immigrant’s need to
purchase or inherit land quickly and Congress’ concerns about granting other
aspects of citizenship.
Another congressman, referring to a statute that allowed English children to
inherit from alien parents,111 suggested that “the . . . children of American
parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done [by Parliament] in
the case of English parents.”112 In essence, he called for a clause that would
permit American parents to bequeath property to their alien children. Thus, he
understood “children of American parents born abroad” to be aliens and
ineligible to inherit property.
.....
On January 2, 1795, the bill
was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was
James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the
opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens:
“It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday,
January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization,
containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary
from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133
Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to
children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural
born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new
statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United
States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be
considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of
citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was
only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137


My understanding is these children were Naturalized via the Naturalization Act as Congress can not amend the Constitution via statute. Even Justice Grey in WKA states:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

Nice cut and paste.

Meanwhile- what I stand says.

She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

So far two judges have disagreed with her.

More are likely to follow.

 

[Syriusly]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The CRS report is as valid as the paper you cited- and more persuasive to any Congress since it is their own research service.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, SCOTUS would stand mute if Congress disqualifies Cruz if he were to become the President elect. Political Question Doctrine, SCOTUS would not touch the issue.

At that point, it would no longer be a political question, it would be a constitutional question and SCOTUS would rule that Congress overstepped. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to disqualify an elected president on the basis of eligibility to run after he is elected.

Nope, SCOTUS wouldn't touch it. Congress has the ability to disqualify, 20th Amendment.

Yes Congress does have the power to disqualify the President elect based on a number of requirements in order to be eligible to hold office.

I agree with you that Congress does have the power to disqualify a President elect.

Whether or not the Supreme Court would accept it frankly is purely conjecture- we can't know- I think that they would leave it to Congress- but on the other hand if Trump were to file a suit in Federal Court as a candidate, the courts might accept his case.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

An interesting and well researched article- but here conclusion is rather contradictory
She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

She states in Section C.:
The very existence of this provision demonstrates that the early American
notion of “natural born citizen” adopted the English common law only and did
not include the eighteenth-century statutes. If it had been otherwise, there
would have been no need for the 1790 statute because the children covered
would have been natural born under then-current English law. As one
nineteenth-century senator stated: “[T]he founders of this Government made
no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of naturalborn
citizens.”105
Moreover, the legislative history suggests that the first Congress intended to
effectuate a change in the law, not merely to declare the status quo.106 On
February 3, 1790, Congress began debating a draft bill that provided for
naturalization.107 The legislature acknowledged the common law principle that
“[a]n alien has no right to hold lands in any country [but his own].”108
However, there was no real opposition to “let[ting] foreigners, on easy terms,
be admitted to hold lands” in America.109 One of Congress’ greatest concerns
was the prospect of all those immigrants pushing their way into the budding
nation’s new government.
....
In sum, the debate focused on how to balance properly an immigrant’s need to
purchase or inherit land quickly and Congress’ concerns about granting other
aspects of citizenship.
Another congressman, referring to a statute that allowed English children to
inherit from alien parents,111 suggested that “the . . . children of American
parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done [by Parliament] in
the case of English parents.”112 In essence, he called for a clause that would
permit American parents to bequeath property to their alien children. Thus, he
understood “children of American parents born abroad” to be aliens and
ineligible to inherit property.
.....
On January 2, 1795, the bill
was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was
James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the
opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens:
“It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday,
January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization,
containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary
from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133
Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to
children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural
born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new
statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United
States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be
considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of
citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was
only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137


My understanding is these children were Naturalized via the Naturalization Act as Congress can not amend the Constitution via statute. Even Justice Grey in WKA states:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

Nice cut and paste.

Meanwhile- what I stand says.

She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

So far two judges have disagreed with her.

More are likely to follow.

Except Justice Gray agrees with her in the WKA case. State judges conclusions are not binding on the federal issue of "natural-born citizenship", their conclusions, are for lack of a better word, useless in all accept for allowing him on the state ballot.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The CRS report is as valid as the paper you cited- and more persuasive to any Congress since it is their own research service.

That's nice except for the fact that even the CRS report states it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

 

[Syriusly]

An interesting and well researched article- but here conclusion is rather contradictory
She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

She states in Section C.:
The very existence of this provision demonstrates that the early American
notion of “natural born citizen” adopted the English common law only and did
not include the eighteenth-century statutes. If it had been otherwise, there
would have been no need for the 1790 statute because the children covered
would have been natural born under then-current English law. As one
nineteenth-century senator stated: “[T]he founders of this Government made
no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of naturalborn
citizens.”105
Moreover, the legislative history suggests that the first Congress intended to
effectuate a change in the law, not merely to declare the status quo.106 On
February 3, 1790, Congress began debating a draft bill that provided for
naturalization.107 The legislature acknowledged the common law principle that
“[a]n alien has no right to hold lands in any country [but his own].”108
However, there was no real opposition to “let[ting] foreigners, on easy terms,
be admitted to hold lands” in America.109 One of Congress’ greatest concerns
was the prospect of all those immigrants pushing their way into the budding
nation’s new government.
....
In sum, the debate focused on how to balance properly an immigrant’s need to
purchase or inherit land quickly and Congress’ concerns about granting other
aspects of citizenship.
Another congressman, referring to a statute that allowed English children to
inherit from alien parents,111 suggested that “the . . . children of American
parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done [by Parliament] in
the case of English parents.”112 In essence, he called for a clause that would
permit American parents to bequeath property to their alien children. Thus, he
understood “children of American parents born abroad” to be aliens and
ineligible to inherit property.
.....
On January 2, 1795, the bill
was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was
James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the
opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens:
“It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday,
January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization,
containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary
from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133
Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to
children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural
born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new
statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United
States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be
considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of
citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was
only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137


My understanding is these children were Naturalized via the Naturalization Act as Congress can not amend the Constitution via statute. Even Justice Grey in WKA states:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

Nice cut and paste.

Meanwhile- what I stand says.

She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

So far two judges have disagreed with her.

More are likely to follow.

Except Justice Gray agrees with her in the WKA case. State judges conclusions are not binding on the federal issue of "natural-born citizenship", their conclusions, are for lack of a better word, useless in all accept for allowing him on the state ballot.

No- she agrees with your interpretation of Justice Gray.

She has an opinion as do many other legal scholars.

But the two judges are the only ones who have any actual legal authority on this issue that have ruled on the merits of the case.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I agree with you that Congress does have the power to disqualify a President elect.

Now you're going to bring down the wrath of BOSS and his jumping up and down exclaiming you are wrong, period.

Whether or not the Supreme Court would accept it frankly is purely conjecture- we can't know- I think that they would leave it to Congress- but on the other hand if Trump were to file a suit in Federal Court as a candidate, the courts might accept his case.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No- she agrees with your interpretation of Justice Gray.

No, She agrees with Justice Grays opinion. Even the CRS report uses the WKA case to state that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

She has an opinion as do many other legal scholars.

Her opinion is very well researched to the point that no other legal scholar has seemed to have gone, not even the CRS report.

But the two judges are the only ones who have any actual legal authority on this issue that have ruled on the merits of the case.

The 2 judges conclusions are not binding and hold no legal precedent or holding on the federal issue of "natural-born citizen" and only allow for Cruz to be on the ballot in those 2 states.

 

[Syriusly]

An interesting and well researched article- but here conclusion is rather contradictory
She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

She states in Section C.:
The very existence of this provision demonstrates that the early American
notion of “natural born citizen” adopted the English common law only and did
not include the eighteenth-century statutes. If it had been otherwise, there
would have been no need for the 1790 statute because the children covered
would have been natural born under then-current English law. As one
nineteenth-century senator stated: “[T]he founders of this Government made
no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of naturalborn
citizens.”105
Moreover, the legislative history suggests that the first Congress intended to
effectuate a change in the law, not merely to declare the status quo.106 On
February 3, 1790, Congress began debating a draft bill that provided for
naturalization.107 The legislature acknowledged the common law principle that
“[a]n alien has no right to hold lands in any country [but his own].”108
However, there was no real opposition to “let[ting] foreigners, on easy terms,
be admitted to hold lands” in America.109 One of Congress’ greatest concerns
was the prospect of all those immigrants pushing their way into the budding
nation’s new government.
....
In sum, the debate focused on how to balance properly an immigrant’s need to
purchase or inherit land quickly and Congress’ concerns about granting other
aspects of citizenship.
Another congressman, referring to a statute that allowed English children to
inherit from alien parents,111 suggested that “the . . . children of American
parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done [by Parliament] in
the case of English parents.”112 In essence, he called for a clause that would
permit American parents to bequeath property to their alien children. Thus, he
understood “children of American parents born abroad” to be aliens and
ineligible to inherit property.
.....
On January 2, 1795, the bill
was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was
James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the
opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens:
“It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday,
January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization,
containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary
from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133
Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to
children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural
born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new
statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United
States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be
considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of
citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was
only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137


My understanding is these children were Naturalized via the Naturalization Act as Congress can not amend the Constitution via statute. Even Justice Grey in WKA states:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

Nice cut and paste.

Meanwhile- what I stand says.

She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

So far two judges have disagreed with her.

More are likely to follow.

Except Justice Gray agrees with her in the WKA case. State judges conclusions are not binding on the federal issue of "natural-born citizenship", their conclusions, are for lack of a better word, useless in all accept for allowing him on the state ballot.

No- she agrees with your interpretation of Justice Gray.

She has an opinion as do many other legal scholars.

But the two judges are the only ones who have any actual legal authority on this issue that have ruled on the merits of the case.

Even the CRS report uses the WKA case to state that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively..

You mean the CRS report that says:

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

 

[Liquid Reigns]

She states in Section C.:
The very existence of this provision demonstrates that the early American
notion of “natural born citizen” adopted the English common law only and did
not include the eighteenth-century statutes. If it had been otherwise, there
would have been no need for the 1790 statute because the children covered
would have been natural born under then-current English law. As one
nineteenth-century senator stated: “[T]he founders of this Government made
no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of naturalborn
citizens.”105
Moreover, the legislative history suggests that the first Congress intended to
effectuate a change in the law, not merely to declare the status quo.106 On
February 3, 1790, Congress began debating a draft bill that provided for
naturalization.107 The legislature acknowledged the common law principle that
“[a]n alien has no right to hold lands in any country [but his own].”108
However, there was no real opposition to “let[ting] foreigners, on easy terms,
be admitted to hold lands” in America.109 One of Congress’ greatest concerns
was the prospect of all those immigrants pushing their way into the budding
nation’s new government.
....
In sum, the debate focused on how to balance properly an immigrant’s need to
purchase or inherit land quickly and Congress’ concerns about granting other
aspects of citizenship.
Another congressman, referring to a statute that allowed English children to
inherit from alien parents,111 suggested that “the . . . children of American
parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done [by Parliament] in
the case of English parents.”112 In essence, he called for a clause that would
permit American parents to bequeath property to their alien children. Thus, he
understood “children of American parents born abroad” to be aliens and
ineligible to inherit property.
.....
On January 2, 1795, the bill
was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was
James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the
opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens:
“It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday,
January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization,
containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary
from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133
Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to
children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural
born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new
statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United
States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be
considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of
citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was
only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137


My understanding is these children were Naturalized via the Naturalization Act as Congress can not amend the Constitution via statute. Even Justice Grey in WKA states:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

Nice cut and paste.

Meanwhile- what I stand says.

She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

So far two judges have disagreed with her.

More are likely to follow.

Except Justice Gray agrees with her in the WKA case. State judges conclusions are not binding on the federal issue of "natural-born citizenship", their conclusions, are for lack of a better word, useless in all accept for allowing him on the state ballot.

No- she agrees with your interpretation of Justice Gray.

She has an opinion as do many other legal scholars.

But the two judges are the only ones who have any actual legal authority on this issue that have ruled on the merits of the case.

Even the CRS report uses the WKA case to state that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively..

You mean the CRS report that says:

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

"would most likely include" is not definitive, it's a matter of broad or narrow interpretation of the USC. As an originalist I tend to go with the narrower interpretation based on actual historical knowledge, not the broad interpretation based on lack of historical knowledge. Justice Grays opinion was also of the narrow interpretation and is based on historical knowledge.

 

[Boss]

Yep, Congress can.

No, Congress can't. If they could, they would have certainly tried to do this at some point against some president at some time... it has never happened. You're barking at the moon on this and frankly, I have spent enough time with your stupid ass. If you want to believe this nonsense, go right ahead, I can't stop you from being stupid. I guess Cruz will have to win the presidency for you to find out you're wrong?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Yep, Congress can.

No, Congress can't. If they could, they would have certainly tried to do this at some point against some president at some time... it has never happened. You're barking at the moon on this and frankly, I have spent enough time with your stupid ass. If you want to believe this nonsense, go right ahead, I can't stop you from being stupid. I guess Cruz will have to win the presidency for you to find out you're wrong?

YES, Congress can. That's right, it has never happened because Cruz's situation would be unique as there has never been a similar situation in the past as I already stated.

Still have menstrual mixed up with mensa do you.

 

[WheelieAddict]

After years of trying to prove Obama was not born in the US when he was republicans will make an exception and line up to vote for someone who was not born in the US. What a bunch of sheep.

 

[Boss]

YES, Congress can. That's right, it has never happened because Cruz's situation would be unique as there has never been a similar situation in the past.

Still have menstrual mixed up with mensa do you.

It's never happened because Congress has no such authority in the Constitution. Period.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

YES, Congress can. That's right, it has never happened because Cruz's situation would be unique as there has never been a similar situation in the past.

Still have menstrual mixed up with mensa do you.

It's never happened because Congress has no such authority in the Constitution. Period.

I guess the 20th Amendment just doesn't exist then. SMFH