Posted on 02/22/2016 8:35:56 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
You’re not alone, but there’s no point discussing a hypothetical match-up that will never happen.
I swore that very same oath. I think Trump will keep it better than any president since Reagan.
Obama, Clinton & Carter swore that same oath as well...just sayin’.
The “Minor” case is only PARTIALLY on point - as I mentioned, the Court EXPLICITLY refused to rule on the issue of the NBC status of someone born in country to 1 or more parents of non-citizen status. That refusal to rule is VERY common - the Court (and the lower federal courts) typically rule ONLY on the SPECIFIC issue presented, so as not to prejudice any future case (and its specific facts and circumstances) with stare decisis.
Rubio falls specifically within the area not ruled upon (i.e. born here to non-citizen parents), whereas Cruz is not born here, but one parent (his mother) was a citizen. WRT Cruz, I think that there is no doubt that he is a citizen (though that’s a bit complicated by the fact that he renounced his Canadian citizenship a few years ago - I didn’t know that there was joint citizenship possible between us and Canada at the time of his birth...but, then again, who really cares what Canadian law says when only US law matters here).
Bottom line: it is a complex issue (even for attorneys), and NO ONE can credibly state that they know the answer. To state that one is anti-Constitution (as you’ve been accused of here) because you back Cruz or Rubio is simply wrong. That, of course, says nothing about the merits of either of them, but only about their eligibility. The merits issue is a whole other discussion. :>)
““Irrelevantâ€
With that curt reply, you’ve inferred that our Constitution is irrelevant. Say it ain’t so.”
I’m an attorney, though not a Constitutional specialist. I researched this issue extensively when Obama’s NBC status came up, and I can tell you for a FACT that there is NO case, repeat NO case, on point in U.S. judicial history regarding the NBC status of someone with the same set of circumstances as either Cruz or Rubio.
Note that I take no particular position on their NBC status. In an earlier post on this thread, I discussed that they each failed to meet the “easy” test of NBC status as laid out in the “Minor” case (i.e. born in the US to 2 US-citizen parents), but that the “Minor” Court itself left a LOT of room to include others in the definition of a NBC.
Objectively speaking, the resolution of this issue isn’t so cut and dry - so please go easy on those who have a different point of view on it. It is easy to argue either side of this issue in perfectly good faith, and with an honest desire to see the Constitution obeyed down to every comma and semi-colon.
This is a direct holding of the case and is binding precedent.
I think it’s sufficient to say about Cruz that he was a Canadian citizen just a year and a half ago.
It’s sufficient to say about Rubio that he’s an anchor baby whose parents were Cuban citizens when he was born so for all we know he has dual citizenship.
The NBC stuff gets into weeds that aren’t going to be resolved anytime soon. Those two lines above, pushed in an informational way will get more traction that just about anything except a real court ruling in the case.
I support Trump. I was simply talking about which of the other candidates I’d prefer as a VP running mate with Trump IF I had to choose.
I also said that I’d vote for a Pluto/Goofy ticket over Clinton/Sanders.
Wow, way to spread misinformation. If you had read the case carefully you would see that you are incorrect.
As I said earlier, the Court's "doubts" were wether children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents were even Citizens. The Court had no doubts about who were the natural born Citizens. That is how they determined her Citizenship, by defining the class of natural born Citizens and including her within that class.
This is a direct holding of the case and is binding precedent.
More false information regarding the Minor case. The Court had no doubt about who were the natural born Citizens. You seem to think that Citizen and natural born Citizen are interchangeable. They are not the same thing.
I simply disagree with you about the significance of the Minor decision. All of the arguing in the world, by you or me, will not result in either of us changing our minds.
That said, I am most definitely NOT for Rubio in any way. His cave on immigration was a betrayal of what he campaigned on - and such a naked betrayal so soon after being elected for the first time indicated the contents of his character.
WRT Cruz, I like the guy a lot, but I’ve also been put off by some of his tactics of late. I’d still like to see his extraordinary intellect and his bulldog tactics used to this country’s advantage...and I think that President Trump could do that by naming him to be the AG or to the Court itself (or maybe AG first, followed a couple years later by the Court). BTW, given the problems between Trump & Cruz of over the last few weeks, I don’t see either of them naming the other as Veep (even if it is Constitutional).
I honestly don’t know who’d be the best Veep for Trump...but I think that you and I probably agree that among those left in the field (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Kasich), the most electable one is Trump. While I’m not thrilled with him as being the ideal conservative candidate (he’s clearly not that mythical creature), he does SEEM to me William Buckley’s test for support (i.e. the most conservative candidate who is likely to prevail in the general election).
“...he does SEEM to me William Buckley’s test....”
SHOULD BE: “he does SEEM to meet William Buckley’s test....”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.