Constitutional Lawyer: ‘No Question Whatsoever’ Cruz Is Eligible

CNS News ^ | January 11, 2016 | Michael Morris

[Cboldt]

-- Exactly, which makes this whole birther line of argument ridiculous and moot. --

I won't disagree with it not being conclusive, maybe persuasive.

Would you agree that the consitution itself is a valid source of authority on the question of citizenship? If so, you might answer the question I offered to you. What state was Cruz a citizen of, when he was born?

[RC one]

But it is actually. right there in the passage I provided you. that there is a fundamental difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is made abundantly clear in article II section I paragraph 5 where it states that either a NBC OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution is eligible to be POTUS.

this distinction was made for one reason only- because many of our esteemed forefathers were not, in fact, natural born citizens as they had been born in Europe and then immigrated to America. They placed the citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution clause into the constitution so that they would be eligible despite not being born in the country and; thus, not being natural born citizens. So, in that sense, they did define what a NBC is not- someone born in a foreign country...like Ted Cruz.

They then went on to prohibit such a person from becoming POTUS unless he happened to be a regular old citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Was Ted Cruz a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution? No. He's not eligible then.

[Timber Rattler]

Utter nonsense.

[Timber Rattler]

What state was Cruz a citizen of, when he was born?

Yet another birther red herring.

[RC one]

I understand that you will never accept this obvious reality and that you are perfectly willing to wipe you a55 with the constitution if it is convenient for you to do so. This issue though...it isn’t going to go away no matter how hard you wipe.

[Cboldt]

How is it a red herring? It's an honest inquiry into what US citizenship is under the US constitution. There is no reference to Vattel, only reference to the US constitution. Something controls the meaning of US citizenship, and the primary source of that determination is the constitution.

The 14th amendment doesn't help Cruz, because it assigns citizenship by being born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction, or being naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction.

[Woodman]

The Natural Born Citizen clause was in acted in order to unite and define citizenship of the United States. At the time they were unified the states were essentially independent countries without a clear western border. Also the issue of citizenship for Native Americans had to be handled in some way.

In my opinion, it was crafted to prevent foreigners with foreign interests or American Indians with loyalties to their Nations from being considered Natural Born. It was also crafted to enable the son of Ma and Pa from let’s say Kentucky who were homesteading west of the border the ability to be a full Natural citizen with all rights including eligibility.

[Timber Rattler]

It's an honest inquiry into what US citizenship is under the US constitution.

Sure it is, huckleberry.

[Timber Rattler]

This issue though...it isn’t going to go away no matter how hard you wipe.

Blah, blah, blah...keep on telling yourself that, birther.

[Cboldt]

-- Sure it is, huckleberry. --

Ad hominem is not a valid form of argument. You could, if you wanted, engage in a good faith discussion. That you don't indicates that you are not a person of good faith.

[Timber Rattler]

[Cboldt]

Really. Your conduct on the forum produces a certain sense to your correspondents and any bystanders to the exchange. You are what you type, here.

[DouglasKC]

“Prince Hamzah bin Hussein (born 29 March 1980)[1] is the son of King Hussein of Jordan and his American-born fourth wife, Queen Noor.
And is therefore qualified to run for President of the United States if he spends another ten years in the US, assuming he took four years to graduate from Harvard.”
Correct. He can run. Could he be elected?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly the founders never intended that someone with such a strong loyalty to another country could be eligible to be President.

[Timber Rattler]

Really. Your conduct on the forum produces a certain sense to your correspondents and any bystanders to the exchange. You are what you type, here.

Really??? OMG, I didn't know that!!!! Oh the shame....!

[Cboldt]

Well, I wasn’t presuming to give you an epiphany that your words create a “reputation.” More along the lines of politely telling you that you come off as an unresponsive jerk and bully, and that you don’t deserve to be treated with respect.

[Timber Rattler]

More along the lines of politely telling you that you come off as an unresponsive jerk and bully, and that you don’t deserve to be treated with respect.

Duly noted.

[JoSixChip]

Hey huckleberry, the 2015 sign-ups are mostly trolls and and paid operatives or campaign social media volunteers. Guess you didn't know that. You do now.

Do you have any evidence to back that up, or are you just speaking out your ass like you have been against Trump?

[Timber Rattler]

Go back to your Altar of Trump and return to your kow-towing, supplicant!

[jdsteel]

“That makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly the founders never intended that someone with such a strong loyalty to another country could be eligible to be President.”

Clearly the founders had more faith in American voters than you.

[DouglasKC]

“That makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly the founders never intended that someone with such a strong loyalty to another country could be eligible to be President.”
Clearly the founders had more faith in American voters than you.

No, they didn't. Which is why we're a representative republic and have a Constitution to protect against such things.