Donald Trump / Newt Gingrich
Posted on 01/15/2016 4:08:47 PM PST by Red Steel
That’s okay. It’s pretty sad to think about the Romney couldn’t even pull it off there
“You keep saying this, but that has not been held by the Supreme Court.”
You may claim to have the right to own a gun even though you may not be part of an organized militia. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on your particular case, so maybe you should wait and see before you purchase any.
“You have been shown this by multiple people on other threads.”
I have heard endless legal theories requiring huge leaps of logic and mental backflips. No one has “shown” me anything of the sort.
“Citizen does not equal natural born citizen, when you depend on a statute passed by Congress to give you citizenship.”
Certainly Congress does specify applicable laws to become a naturalized citizen, but that does not apply to Cruz because he was a citizen at birth.
No one has shown any relevant evidence to disprove the simple explanation that a natural born citizen is a citizen at birth, and a naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen later. The Constitution only recognizes two types of citizens: born and naturalized. If there IS some evidence contrariwise, I am openminded enough to listen and reconsider. But no one has shown something that should be easy to produce if what I am saying is untrue.
Cruz is a citizen by birth based on the naturalization act of 1952 which was in force at the time.
The first naturalization act in 1790 explicitly describes a case in which, at the time that act was in force, children born outside of the US were regarded in the eyes of the law as natural born citizens. It is also clear from the context that this means they did not need to naturalize. No other categories of citizens are specified in the founding documents or early laws.
The founders understood that citizenship could be conferred at birth either due to where the birth took place or the citizenship of the parents. However, it has always been within the purview of Congress, to determine how and when this applies. Otherwise you find yourself taking the highly suspect position that the founders who wrote the first naturalization act did not know the Constitution and drafted the first such law unconstitutionally.
So, do you actually believe that children born to US citizens traveling abroad between 1790 and 1795 (when the first naturalization act was in force) were not natural born citizens? Do you believe Congress enacted an unconstitutional law 18 months after ratifying the Constitution?
“Your confusion seems to lie in the notion that Congress can alter the Constitutional eligibility requirements via the definition of NBC.”
I don’t think that. I think Congress can determine how to apply the two basic factor of birthright citizenship which are place of birth and citizenship of the parents.
“The definition of NBC is fixed as it was written.”
No definition was provided. It is commonly understood that citizenship at birth is based on either the place of birth or the citizenship of the parents or both.
Blacks, Indians, and others were born in the US and under its jurisdiction after the Constitution was ratified, and they were not recognized as citizens. Location alone did not automatically confer citizenship status. Children were born abroad to US citizen parents during the early years of this nation, and many of those were legally citizens from birth as determined by law which the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to enact.
Regardless, natural born citizenship is citizenship at birth. Naturalization is conferring citizenship some time later. If it is otherwise, I have yet to see a shred of evidence beyond endless, convoluted legal arguments. If I am wrong, it should be fairly simple to show evidence to the contrary. Coincidentally, the majority of legal and Constitutional experts (neither of which I claim to be) agree with my position.
“Based on the changes Madison made to the Naturalization Act of 1795, it’s highly likely Madison intended to incorporate a jus soli - rule of the soul - approach.”
I thought you believed Congress could not change the definition. But it seems you are saying Madison essentially “fixed” an error in the 1790 legislation. The problem is, this change just further supports that Congress does have authority to determine how parentage and place of birth effect natural born citizenship. This is doubly true if my definition of natural born citizen is correct. If it simply means citizen at birth, then it is clearly not an overreach for Congress to specify what conditions are necessary to be a citizen at birth because this is necessary to determine who must apply for citizenship or otherwise have it conferred by act or amendment.
The fact that the 1790 law was repealed and replaced with the 1795 law shows that the Congress evidently rethought their construction of the law.
And that James Madison, the writer of much of the Constitution, was instrumental in the 1795 law which replaced the 1790 law.
Any Congress can pass an unconstitutional law. It is neither hard, nor unheard of, in our history.
Congress can only pass a law that defines naturalization when it comes to citizenship. That is its sole purvey under the Constitution.
When citizenship is granted under a law of naturalization, it does not, and cannot grant the status of natural born. That is because citizenship of the natural born citizen is imparted by its very nature, and requires no law to enable it.
If you are granted American citizenship by operation of a naturalization law, you are not natural born.
There is no Supreme Court precedent that states that a naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen, that meets the qualifications for the office of President.
A person born with dual or triple nationality is not the same as one born as a natural born citizen with undivided allegiance to America.
Otherwise the natural born requirement is reduced to nothing, and any citizen, including one born in country of illegal aliens, can ascend to the Presidency.
Romney came much closer to winning the election than most people realize.
Romney lost Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire by a total of 430,000 votes.
Winning all four of those states would have given Romney exactly 270 electoral votes.
Cruz didn’t understand Trump’s answer on being angry, Cruz seems to think he can get win by making voters at a him.
“The fact that the 1790 law was repealed and replaced with the 1795 law shows that the Congress evidently rethought their construction of the law. And that James Madison, the writer of much of the Constitution, was instrumental in the 1795 law which replaced the 1790 law. Any Congress can pass an unconstitutional law. It is neither hard, nor unheard of, in our history.”
You said all that to make the case that the very first naturalization act, written a mere 18 months after the ratification of the Constitution, and authored by some of the very founders who ratified the Constitution, was actually unconstitutional.
Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence that anyone, including Madison, thought so?
“Congress can only pass a law that defines naturalization when it comes to citizenship.”
It does not define naturalization. Naturalization is a word. It has a meaning apart from anything Congress does. Naturalization (according to wikipedia) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities. What Congress was empowered to do is “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Apparently at least some of the founders thought this power included specifying and clarifying who qualifies as a “natural born citizen” because they immediately did so by statute. (You cannot make a uniform rule of naturalization if it is unclear who needs to be naturalized and who does not.)
Further, the founders recognized that citizenship at birth is conferred based on the location of birth and the citizenship status of the parents. Specifying if citizenship is conferred at birth based on one or more parents’ citizenship was and is apparently within the purview of Congress under the naturalization clause. If not, then not only did the founders immediate pass an unconstitutional law, but none of them saw fit to point this out for the benefit of their posterity.
“That is because citizenship of the natural born citizen is imparted by its very nature, and requires no law to enable it.”
Citizenship itself is a legal construct just as much as laws and constitutions. Being born of human parents naturally results in a person being human. Being a citizen at birth is “natural” because a government exists which exercises authority or jurisdiction over the people within its borders. Such governments, as per our founders, exist by the consent of the governed. However, babies cannot consent. But they are naturally part of families in which parents make decisions for their children until they are of age. Thus children are “naturally” citizens of whatever state their parents are citizens of. We see this exact logic applied in determining who are citizens.
When children are born to two parents with the same citizenship in the native land of the parents, natural born citizenship is obvious. It is not obvious when any of these factors are not present. A uniform rule of naturalization requires identifying who is a citizen of the US at birth, and who otherwise must naturalize to obtain it.
On side note, the Constitution never granted Congress the power to regulate immigration, only naturalization. States could Constitutionally regulate immigration into their borders. (Originally citizenship in the US meant citizenship in a particular state which did not change with residency necessarily.) So I am wondering if the birthers here are willing to follow the same parsing and splitting of hairs needed to come up with the supposed “born in the USA” requirement and admit that the president and Congress should have no say whatsoever over who enters the country.
My point in bringing this up is that the birthers here would actually deny Ted Cruz the opportunity to be president because of what they themselves consider a technicality, and which they know the majority of legal and constitutional scholars disagree with, and which they know will certainly be ruled against by the Courts if it ever makes it there. Would the birthers be willing to open the floodgates of the borders in order to be strictly and technically consistent with the Constitution?
The reality is that this nation IS OVER. We need conservative leaders to minimize the destructiveness that is going to occur as this nation comes apart at its seams. Neither Trump, nor Cruz, nor any other candidate is going to save this nation. It is morally corrupt from top to bottom. It has abandoned the foundational principles and replaced them with greed, selfishness, and malice. But there are still many principled people who can build a new nation from the ash heaps of this one. It will be much more difficult if people like Obama or Clinton are in charge.
We are at a point where the abuses of our government are far greater than those of the British crown when our founders formed the Declaration of Independence dissolving our bonds with England.
Debating the natural born citizenship of Cruz is tiresome. It is arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. Conservatives here need to focus on what matters. Elect the most conservative candidate. I support Cruz and Trump for president.
Meaningless. If you subtract Trump from the race, his people are just going to stay home. I’d be surprised if Ted even won any RED states, in that event.
Sorry - Ted. You sound as delusional as your supporters.
Trump has a small chance of winning NY/NJ and certainly NH.
Cruz might be the least likely guy in history to win a single blue state that’s ever run.
You are exactly right Freddy. Demographics has changed everything. If Cruz wins the nomination he will be buried in the general election.
The Eisenhower people used “Taft Can’t Win” to defeat the Ohioan. I believe Trump will use “Cruz Can’t Win” if it becomes necessary for him to do so. But there were communist sympathizers in the USA in the 1950s, probably more than Khrushchev thought.
Wasn’t there a 1988 scenario like this that would have also elected Dukakis?
Donald Trump / Newt Gingrich
I don't know what Taft believed, but there was no conservative movement in the Republican party in 1952. They were all whipped puppies, the Rockefeller party. The last conservative had been Silent Cal, and it was not a formal ideology. WFB created the conservative movement. Conservatives have succeeded only with Reagan, and in 1994. Our votes in 2010 and 2014 were squandered on Boehner and McConnell. We are down to our last gasp.
The threshold issue is immigration. The GOPe and Democrats are for amnesty. That will end conservatism and America as we know it (and the GOPe will never win again, either, but they are too stupid to know that). It has to be stopped, even if the guy who stops it is flawed on other issues. Without control of the border, and preventing the illegals from voting in our elections, it is game over, and conservatives like Ted Cruz will never, ever have a chance in national elections, to undo all the other abominations brought about by progressives.
To compare this to Eisenhower/Taft is just dumb. The situation is not the same, except there are two Republicans and one is clearly more likely to be elected than the other.
As an aside, please note that Eisenhower is the President who implemented "Operation Wetback", and deported several million Mexicans. That action alone delayed the Mexican invasion by 50 years. When Reagan signed Immigration Reform in 1986, it legalized a total of 3 million Mexicans, what was supposed to be a one time deal that would never happen again because of employee sanctions and other enforcement mechanisms that Bush 41 promptly ignored. We are going to lose our country, and if we bet on the perfect instead of the good enough, and we lose that bet, then you and I will have to move or submit to the new world order. You are wrong, and I'm not going to take that risk. I'll go with Trump, because whatever else he does, I believe he will do what he says on immigration.
I scanned quickly through the data.
Bush won California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (imagine that happening today!) by relatively small margins, but that's only 116 electoral votes.
It looks like Dukakis needed several million more votes and about five more states than Romney needed.
I'll guess that most presidential elections could have been calculated with a different winner with a fairly small change in the popular vote.
My main point was that most people don't realize that Romney lost by just 3.9%, and that he did significantly better than McCain did.
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.