Posted on 02/19/2016 4:41:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
>>> Originalism is not going to be a winning argument in this case. There may be some other creative argument, but the courts aren’t going to revive originalism after burying it for a hundred years.
Then the courts serve no purpose whatsoever.
It’s their job to INTERPRET the law, and that REQUIRES the study, use, and APPLICATION of original meanings and intent.
But I think you are right... Our courts are not willing to sacrifice their precious “precedence” in favor of their obligations to uphold the law.
It’s not just precedents, it’s the entire legal education system. Lawyers must forswear certain ways of thinking to maintain themselves in good standing. Most lack the thinking and language skills to overcome regurgitated modern legal theory. Sort of how the Pope has no capability for thought or expression outside of Liberation Theology and Marxism.
I think you would find that definition here: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
I can’t believe the time and emotion being wasted on this issue. The Illinois BOE already ruled, in another case filed at the same time, that Cruz is a natural born citizen. That case was not thrown out, dismissed, etc, it was adjudicated in favor of the defendant, Ted Cruz.What are the odds that a judge in the same jurisdiction will render a different verdict? The facts have not changed, just the wind direction.
The Constitution does define what constitutes a “natural born citizen”. As with anything that is not specifically defined, it is left up to the USSC to interpret and define.
People are quoting Lawrence Tribe now saying that Cruz is not eligible, but in 2008 he published a book, “Presidents and Citizenship” and asserted that looking at all available sources confirms that “natural born citizen” includes children born abroad to parents who are citizens. I don’t know why he would have changed his mind recently, except that he is a leftist and afraid of a Cruz presidency.
I am also inclined to not believe those who keep saying” we need to get this settled now, before the Dems can use it against him”. I believe it is just to plant doubt and sway voters over to Donald Trump, as he is the one who made the big issue of it.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/02/illinois-board-of-elections-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
If anyone is interested, here is a link to the article. Once you get to the Dailercaller page click on the “Illinois board of Elections” hot link and you can read the entire ruling.
A restrictive interpretation that is not found anywhere in law or in the Constitution. So what make it the correct and only interpretation?
I think the whole point of the NBC clause is to insure that the president does not have divided loyalties and that no foreign power has a claim on him.
Loyalties are not issued, they are developed. Why should anyone doubt the loyalties of a man who has spend almost all his life here, who was born of a citizen parent, who was educated here and spent his entire working life here, and who has never shown any loyalty to any other country just because of an accident of birth?
Why? Citizenship is not the issue. Eligibility to serve as POTUS is the issue.
And you have it exactly backward a liberal judge or one that believes the constitution is a living document would be more likely to side with Cruz than would a conservative original intent judge.
Going by original intent there is no way the founders would have considered the son of a Cuban born in Canada a natural born US citizen. In fact such a person would not even be a citizen of the USA prior to the 1934 Naturalization Act.
Because the law says they do, as persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there of. So by the definition given then they are citizens by rule of law and not natural-born citizens.
References are all over the place. They solve nothing. Why can’t everyone agree that a definitive court decision is best for all?
If it does then why the need for Section V?
But really I'm hiding nothing. But even if you are correct that the 14th Amendment has the force of law, then force of law is what gives people their citizenship. How can they be natural-born citizens under the definition given?
I fear that you are right. That is a shame for all cases involving the Constitution and not just this one. The truth that is plain to see is that the actual Constitution is no longer a controlling document in law.
>>> So by the definition given then they are citizens by rule of law and not natural-born citizens.
Those who are MADE citizens by law are naturalized.
Those who are made citizens because their parents are citizens are natural born.
The founding fathers and every other American at the signing of the declaration of independence were naturalized. This is why they had to make an exception in the constitution for the first generation of Americans to be eligible to run for president.
The first generation of black Americans at the implementation of the 14th amendment were MADE citizens by law, making them naturalized. Any children which were born by them AFTER that would be natural born. (inheriting their citizenship from their parents)
Inheritance of your citizenship is NOT an act of congress. This is from “Law of Nations” and was well understood by the founding fathers. To be born to citizen parents of ANY country is to be natural born of that country by birthright not law.
Any law establishing citizenship by other means than inheritance is naturalization.
Black Americans born to citizen parents are natural born, just as any other American of any color is natural born if their parents are citizens.
>>> force of law is what gives people their citizenship.
This is like saying it is the mother who decides whether and when her unborn child is a life.
Our founding fathers relied upon the law of nations to define birthright citizenship.
Another way of looking at this is to consider the bill of rights... You don’t have those rights by law... the law recognizes that you have them by default because you are a human being.
Apparently you do not understand the relationship between amendments, treaties, laws, acts, statutes and code.
Code as in USD Title 8; is the sum of all amendments, treaties, acts, laws and statutes. It reflects not only the original law but any subsequent modifications may by other act of congress. Further, I have NEVER said that the 14th amendment holds no force. When in fact, the 14th amendment is reflected in USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection A.
What you just did is a logical fallacy called “strawman”. It is the misrepresentation of my argument in the attempt to make your attack seem more valid. Since you have previously resulted to other logical fallacies, allow me to point you to a web page that can help you avoid these debate and discourse mistakes.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
What I see is that nobody wants to discuss is that Congress was specifically enumerated with establishing all the rules of naturalization per Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
I ignore you and your ignorant nonsense. Go fool some rubes.
>>> What I see is that nobody wants to discuss is that Congress was specifically enumerated with establishing all the rules of naturalization per Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with eligibility to run for president... because the constitution establishes that only natural born citizens are eligible.
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/#
Pretty straightforward and easy to understand presentation about Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.
Citizen by a law?? = Naturalized.
Any who are born on US soil are then, by your definition, naturalized. USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection A
.... and the Constitution ALSO vests the authority with rules of naturalization (who is an alien, who is born a citizen, etc) with Congress. Article I Section 8
Yes. If BOTH of their parents are NOT NATURAL BORN.
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.