Posted on 02/10/2016 1:55:32 PM PST by drewh
Your rule is "citizenship by family," but the rule applied under the US constitution is "citizenship by nation."
Naturalized citizens aren't any less of a citizen than a native born citizen. No thoughtful person would think that. It is ludicrous on its face, that a naturalized citizen is any less a citizen than one born on the land. This principle of equality of citizenship is burned into the pages of thousands of court decisions over the past two centuries. The inequality that you posit is odious.
I've given you case law authority that proves you are wrong. Go stick you head in the sand. I'm writing you off as a bigot, on account of your view that naturalized citizens are second class.
It is not I who believe that naturalized citizens are “second class” - but rather those who believe that if my children were born while I was serving my country overseas, rather than a couple of years later in the US, they would be ineligible to be president.
Your disclaimer is not credible.
birthright citizens, ordered abroad by the US government, could potentially give birth to a child who was "less" of a citizen than their parents? That is ludicrous at its face.
Goodbye.
Tell me, are all American citizens over the age of 35 equally eligible to be president? Or might their be some additional qualifier?
And, by way of a clue, I submit the title of this thread: “Ted Cruz Not Eligible To Be POTUS, According to Most Plausible Interpretation of Constitution”
Is Ted Cruz a citizen? That is undoubtedly correct. And personally, I believe it is clear that Cruz is constitutionally eligible. The intention of the “native born” clause was to ensure that we do not elect someone with divided loyalties, and I do not believe that anyone can reasonably assert that Cruz owes any allegiance to Canada. That there is any further debate about his eligibility for the presidency is clear evidence that you are incorrect.
And, by way of a clue, I submit the title of this thread: “Ted Cruz Not Eligible To Be POTUS, According to Most Plausible Interpretation of Constitution”
Is Ted Cruz a citizen? That is undoubtedly correct. And personally, I believe it is clear that Cruz is constitutionally eligible. The intention of the “native born” clause was to ensure that we do not elect someone with divided loyalties, and I do not believe that anyone can reasonably assert that Cruz owes any allegiance to Canada. That there is any further debate about his eligibility for the presidency is clear evidence that you are incorrect.
Thanks for the reply..
I vaguely remember McCain’s hand wringing at any criticism of Buckwheat. Strange...I guess the metros will do a 180 if either Raphael or the Rube should win the nomination. The speed of the filing of the NBC lawsuits would be breathtaking.
If Trump should lose, we are surely doomed..
Hot air ain’t the Supreme Court. They aren’t even a lower court. It’s a blog. Take it to court. Until then, you can just keep yelling “CANADA!!” until your shorts dry out.
I sure hope people don’t have this kind of trouble figuring out of they are natural born sinners.
That statement gives you away. You say you do not believe that anyone can reasonably assert that Cruz owes any allegiance to Canada. The eligibility clause does not say that each candidate must be tested to find out if it can be reasonably asserted that they owe any allegiance to another nation. The Constitution was written to exclude a group of citizens that might have any possibility of a divided allegiance. We do not even get to test Ted Cruz because he is already not eligible.
Once upon a time, conservatives believed in the doctrine of original intent, in which judges interpreted the Constitution based upon the intention of the founders - not the expediency of a short term politicialy motivated desire by a buffoonish faux conservative candidate to vanquish his leading challenger from the race.
“There are many SCOTUS decision where 9 of 9 justices necessarily operate from the premise that a person born abroad is an alien, unless naturalized by Congress”
I’m not ok with calling a 5-4 decision a correct decision. It may be a decision, but if it was passed on partisan or ideological grounds, then that decision is political and no worthy of respect. Either something is constitutional or it is not. I know, I’m in the minority. I don’t always buy what people spew as settled law. Sorry.
Say, for example, the issue is whether or not a jury instruction was adequate, and 5 said it was, and 4 said it was not. 9 of the justices would agree that there had been a charge of a criminal offense, and a trial.
9 of 9 justices agreed with the necessary premisethat Bellei was naturalized. 5 of 9 thought it was constitutional to condition his ongoing citizenship with presence in the US, 4 of the justices thought his (naturalized) citizenship could not constitutionally be conditioned on his ever being present in the US.
"Necessary premise" is emphasized, because some cracker barrel lawyer will come along and say that any remarks about naturalization are dicta, irrelevant to the case, side remarks. But if Bellei is not naturalized, this case does not exist. Just like in the jury instruction example, the fact there was a trial is an essential, yet non-controversial premise.
Now, you are not be the only person to say that 9 justices got it wrong in the Bellei case and the literally thousands of other cases that operate with a premise that the born abroad person is naturalized. Even though there are zero cases that even challenge the premise, and even though no justice has ever suggested that a born abroad person is anything other than naturalized, a certain number of people simply insist that 200 years of consistent case law is wrong.
Funny stuff. Flat earthers, kooks, sun orbits the earth, moon is made of green cheese, unicorns.
So it is your assertion that two clearly birthright citizens, ordered abroad by the US government, could potentially give birth to a child who was "less" of a citizen than their parents? That is ludicrous at its face, and no reasonable person would attribute that intent to the Constitution.
First of all that should be re-written without the confusing generality, like so ...
it is your assertion that two natural born citizens, ordered abroad by the US government, could potentially give birth to a child who was "less" of a citizen than their parents?
... And finally we have a useful hypothetical from the other side.
Now if by "lesser" you mean that two NBC have a "mere citizen" child, a classic citizen at birth who requires no naturalization then you are correct, but you are the one who has assigned the negative connotation. In reality the only difference is that this child is deprived of running for one office. Oh how terrible for the child!
Perhaps the indignation should be aimed at the mother who couldn't manage in NINE months to find her way back home to deliver her precious future President. It's not like we humans have the reproductive cycle of a cat, or that pregnancy is a surprise, or that we are stuck in the colonial era of ship or horse travel preventing return to home. It's not like they don't get ( paid ) maternity leave ( or paternity nowadays! ). No, the fact is that there is no good excuse for not delivering at home if you want to be the mother of a President. And it's not like there isn't birth control which begs the question as to just how smart are these people really are. Why are soldiers and diplomats having kids abroad in the first place? An icky question? Too bad. Ask parents who did this in the 1940's and 1950's and they will tell you they knew their kids delivered abroad were not eligible to run for President under the strictest interpretation.
People who dispute this, like yourself apparently, act as if it is a punishment to a child, when in reality it is a security precaution for the United States Of America and the Constitution. It simply acknowledges that there is a difference between being born in one of the United States, and being born everywhere else.
What we are seeing play out here is that huge mistake that occurred in our schools since the 1960's when idiotic teachers began telling their kids In America, anyone can become President. That's nonsense. Anyone can become a citizen *if* we decide to let them. Any citizen can run for any office except for the one that has a higher standard than all others, and for a good reason.
Your argument is really just another form of the modern, yellow ribbon wearing, everybody gets a prize approach to life. No effort required ( on the mother's part ) to be the same as everyone else. You essentially tell the mother to not even make the effort to go home and deliver and still she and her child is no different than a mother who makes that intentional effort to get home. This is simultaneously rewarding irresponsibility and diluting American natural born citizenship.
The John McCain scenario, which is what you have described was a clear example of an edge case, a rare event compared to the vast majority of USA births and to keep it simple and clean he should have been tossed overboard immediately. He never should have ran if he cared about the Constitution ( which he certainly does not care about at all in the first place ). What, did we run out of Natural Born Citizens or something, and we needed to dive into the pool of questionable people? I'm getting sick and tired of the Constitution taking a back seat to people's feelings and their urges to reward this person or that.
Why even go down this road, can you answer that? There is no good reason to excuse these edge cases. We are not running out of people qualified to run for President, and by excusing any scenario you open the door to excuse all scenarios. If you have two potential babysitters or employees or school bus drivers, and one has a possible problem in their record then you don't go crazy trying to rationalize that person. You err on the side of caution and pick the cleanest case. Why this isn't done for the highest office in the land is what is a symptom of a failing American IQ and inevitable national suicide.
Hot air ain't the Supreme Court. They aren't even a lower court. It's a blog. Take it to court. Until then, you can just keep yelling "CANADA!!" until your shorts dry out.
Ah, you give the benefit of the doubt to the candidate, NOT to your country and Constitution. So it's down to placing the burden of proof onto the USA to protect itself by proving a negative rather than making the potential CinC prove their qualification. Thank God you do not hire FBI agents or spies or anything important.
Tell you what though, to make it really simple ... Can you provide a list of Presidents, Presidential Candidates, and persons running for nomination who were born outside the United States Of America and/or were born to foreign parents?
Bonus question ... Would you agree that Ted Cruz should stop being referred to as potential first hispanic nominee and instead be known as first foreign-born nominee? That sounds like one of those groundbreaking titles to loudly publicize ( Hillary or FioRINO to be first woman nomminee, Barry first black mulatto, JFK first Catholic, etc ). How come this Canadian thing was hidden?
That little display did it for me, it proved he never even spent five minutes learning about Article II Section 1, and all his alleged Constitutional talents are now suspect to me.
By golly, you really don't have a sense of humor, do you?
Well I've got a wickedly awesome sense of humor, ask anyone. When I miss a joke there is no-one harder on myself than ... myself.
So can you please point out the joke I missed?
Once upon a time, conservatives believed in the doctrine of original intent, in which judges interpreted the Constitution based upon the intention of the founders - not the expediency of a short term politicialy motivated desire by a buffoonish faux conservative candidate to vanquish his leading challenger from the race.
Once upon a time, conservatives believed in the doctrine of original intent, in which judges interpreted the Constitution based upon the intention of the founders - not the expediency of a short term politicialy motivated desire ...
... to get their foreign born candidate nominated at all costs?
Again, it is an issue of original intent. The intent was to ensure that a candidate did not owe allegiance to a foreign power. Are you seriously concerned that Ted Cruz owes his allegiance to Canada?
Again, it is an issue of original intent. The intent was to ensure that a candidate did not owe allegiance to a foreign power. Are you seriously concerned that Ted Cruz owes his allegiance to Canada?
I actually do NOT doubt his sincerity or question his allegiances. The fact that he renounced his Canadian citizenship two years ago is a good indicator of his loyalty.
Now that I have answered your question, answer one for me. Do you even know where the Natural Born Citizen clause originates from? I mean who instigated it and why?
I'll cut to the chase here. The original intent of that clause isn't about the loyalty of, or jurisdiction over the President ( although they are absolutely key issues for the electorate consider if the USA is to be protected ), instead it is expressly a concern about how soldiers would accept or question their CinC. Their loyalty is what is at risk.
In summary, your precise question to me is actually the wrong question if you are actually speaking of original intent, a phrase that has historical meaning.
Another question which few ever attempt to answer is this ... How could anyone believe he could keep his Canadian birth a secret? Does no-one realize the enormity of the October surprise that would have been dropped on his head by the (D)ummycrats? Does no-one remember the hidden DUI from Bush43?
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.