Replies

Long reply, but the answer lies in your last paragraph.

How much from the soil makes you natural born? Except for possibly those born of diplomats and others in the service of their country to TWO citizen parents, all of it. For a great analysis of the jus solis requirement look up constitution.org for presidential eligibility.

Few people have the skill to do this kind of constitutional analysis. Many more think of the result they wish to have and cherry pick only what they need to reach it. You should question whether you are of the latter.

T. Cruz is so out of the park with his non natural born status he will be denied the opportunity of being the first known foreign born president under the terms of Article II. The question is how much damage will he cause in the succor of his political vanity.

Respectfully, . . .

1. NBC was not defined in the Constitution (C), and that people then “knew what it was” is not a legal definition and NOT legally binding, and as such, never was meant to be.
2. What NBC might be was most certainly discussed while the C was being debated and written.
3. And most certainly there was discussion about defining it.
4. The C writers were also aware that not defining it would leave it open to some change.
5. It is clear what “35 years of age” is, and “14 years of residency,” but anyone who reads “must be a natural-born citizen” has to ask, “what’s a natural-born citizen.”
6. The C writers varied greatly in their specifics on things. One read through the C will show that. They were very specific on many things, going into great detail, which our country is legally bound to unless we amend those words.
7. The C writers valued both inflexibility and flexibility - inflexibility in order to protect some fundamental things that might otherwise be undermined, and flexibility to adapt to changing conditions over an expected very long period of time, and to do so to provide for the least amount of amending of the C as possible, as constant amending would not be a good thing.
8. The C writers didn’t leave a clear-cut legal mechanism for making candidates prove their eligibility, or legally challenging it.
9. The C writers did leave some sort of mechanism for to do so, though - and that is the Presidential campaign itself, when the character and past of the candidates is probed, tested and challenged by the other candidates, and the public decides what it all means.
10. When Chester Arthur ran, his father was an immigrant, and I believe only became a citizen after his birth, and there were rumors he was born in Canada. But there was no legal challenge, and the matter was left to the public, to see if it would gain traction with them.
11. What NBC was interpreted to be, both in thought and practice, in the 1790’s, for example, is not the determining factor, because the C writers didn’t legally enshrine that meaning. It’s like a contract meant to be in effect for centuries leaving something undefined, intentionally, and something that isn’t obvious.

I think the fatal error to the logic of the arguments you favor is that you grant legal status to what was in the C writers’ minds - their MINDS - on what NBC might have meant then to them - but which THEY themselves chose NOT - NOT - to put down on paper so that it was the legal standard.

Whatever citizenship and NBC was legally interpreted to be in 1789, which would have been what made the most sense to them, since they both wanted to sufficiently protect the country while not overprotecting it and not keeping people from running for President on insufficient grounds, the C writers chose not to legally freeze exactly what the NBC were at the time.

I doubt that Ted Cruz will be forced from the race for this, but who can say right now? If he is, though, it will only be by conservatives forcing it. The left won’t be forcing it because as long as they don’t push the issue, then they are free to run candidates with similar eligibility situations to Cruz’s in the future and just say they don’t interpret things the same way as conservatives; and they have most Constitutional scholars backing them up; there is also no mechanism like an application process or a way to challenge eligibility; and they will most likely have the full backing of most Americans, who understand that NBC is only about allegiances, and will not legitimately see any common sense, logical connection for disallowing Cruz under today’s circumstances.

Now on the public’s role in this, it seems to be an ultimate authority in answering this question.

And there is so much that I believe the public generally gets wrong today. But not everything, and as for a true rationale that there is some real threat to Cruz’s allegiances due to his mere birth somewhere else while being a citizen from birth, the public will legitimately see none.

Many, MANY people spend time in other countries today, and probably many of them also have children there, and they will see that their American identity, and passing along their understanding of American principles to their children, and American influences, mean far more today than just

Holding to the interpretation you favor is overly restrictive. It was not LEGALLY set into law, and whether or not you acknowledge that, that’s the case. What you are arguing for is a traditional interpretation of a law, the interpretation of that day, rather than following the actual law that was written two-hundred or so years ago and has not been amended, so is still in effect.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/11/poll-results-cruz-birth/

I left out some of my reply that I had in a different file. Here it is:

I need an answer on something - who do you support for the Republican nomination? I’ll tell you, if I haven’t, that I support both Cruz and Trump, and any effort to represent Bible-believing Christians.

>>>Long reply, but the answer lies in your last paragraph...How much from the soil makes you natural born? Except for possibly those born of diplomats and others in the service of their country to TWO citizen parents, all of it. For a great analysis of the jus solis requirement look up constitution.org for presidential eligibility.

I don’t agree. I appreciate you sharing your opinion, but just so you know, you haven’t convinced me. I have yet to read the web page you brought up, but from glancing at it, and reading the various arguments different people have put forward, I don’t see that they’ve satisfactorily overcome the many challenges to their position.

As I believe we’ve agreed, there is no other basis for NBC but the matter of allegiances. That’s it.

So are you telling me that, presuming you were born yourself on U.S. ground, your allegiances to the U.S. would be different if your parents had worked for a year in another country and you had been born there, and were a U.S. citizen from birth, but then they came back.

I think you are still overlooking a few things.

In 1789, the Constitution was new and it was an advance in self-government which was also new. Two hundred plus years later, though, it is familiar and normal to people.

You also haven’t considered something else about the Constitution’s NBC requirement: that the presidential candidate must have lived for at least 14 years in the United States. A mere 14 years of residency! Someone could leave at age 2, and return at 23, and be eligible!