Posted on 02/06/2016 1:47:14 AM PST by RC one
Edited on 02/06/2016 5:34:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
BOSTON (AP) — Two legal scholars squared off in a public debate on Friday to settle whether Republican Ted Cruz is eligible to become president. Spoiler alert: They didn't settle it.
But the debate at Harvard Law School underscored that conflicting interpretations of the U.S. Constitution can produce different answers. The question has been in the national spotlight since Republican rival Donald Trump suggested that Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, isn't legally qualified to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at pilotonline.com ...
So you’re arguing that because the Constitution was violated to elect Zero, we should let that precedent stand, and permanently injure our founding charter?
If the court were composed of American jurists who abided by the Constitution, and who were not leftist, activist oligarchs, then yes, I’d be all for it.
It’s okay to disagree. I don’t like it either, but right now I’m more interested in getting the full-on illegals out of this country and stopping Muslims who have a high likelihood of terrorist potential, refugees who don’t belong here and a host of other things.
Cruz is my second option behind Trump. I’ll take either if that’s how the nomination shakes out. I will never vote for a Rubio, Jeb, Christie or Kasich. I’m done with that.
Little by little, they’re chip away at the eligibility clause. There is a pattern of constitutional subversion here that started with Obama. We either have a country or we don’t and if we’re letting foreign born men become POTUS and refusing to control our borders, we do not have a country and it’s time to explore other avenues of redress.
Understand.
“If there was no US constitution, there would be no such thing as a US citizen. The notion of “citizenship” in a non-existent country or nation is nonsense.”
Actually, you are quite mistaken. I suggest you read the very lengthy commentary of what Hugo Grotius among others have to say about what does and does not constitute a sovereign state and how the state arises from the people who constitute that society.
With respect to the United States, the United States of America and its citizens existed prior to the drafting and adoption of the Constitution in 1787. The United States of America and its citizens existed prior to the drafting and adoption of the Articles of Confederation. The United States of America and its citizens came into existence on 2-4 July 1776. Earlier still, the societies which constituted the United States of America on 2-4 July 1776 wee previously constituted as a North American colonial federation with distinct legal status as citizens thereof under British colonial governance. Upon independence these pre-Revolutionary War citizens of the North American colonies were collectively naturalized as U.S. citizens, provided they complied with the necessary oaths of allegiance. Consequently, the first generation of U.S. citizens were collectively naturalized upon the Declaration of Independence and during the Revolutionary War. These naturalized U.S. citizens then gave birth to the first natural born citizens of the United States, as reflected in the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence established the United States of America. The states naturalized their citizens. The children of the naturalized citizens naturally arrived as the first of the natural born citizens without the authority of statutory law to do so.
“And conversely, the existence of a country depends on it having citizens or subjects.”
Yes, and they were acquired by state statutes authorizing collective naturalization of existing colonial citizens and personal naturalization of new immigrants.
“Whether or not it is legitimate under the laws of nature or not, the constitution purports to define a system of government, in force in a reasonably well defined geographic place. The constitution says who will be citizens under that system of government.”
No, the Constitution has no power to make natural law that ancient legal tradition established centuries and millennia before the existence of the Constitution and the United States. In fact, the Constitution is a legislative act known as Positive Law. See the definitions of Positive Law and Natural Law in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. At most, the Constitution can take note of the prior existence of Natural Law and the Law of Nations as it does so implicitly with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution enumerated the powers delegated by the People to the Congress, and that was “To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Nowhere in the Constitution is there an improper attempt to delegate a power To establish an uniform rule of natural law citizenship.
Three elections in a row with candidates of increasingly questionable eligibility and now we have an openly foreign born candidate running and you’re going to sit there and act like this is a straw man argument? I call BS. thgere’s a clear pattern of subversion at work here. It is clear as day light that the eligibility clause is being willfully eroded.
I wasn't touching on how a state arises, just remarking on the ramifications if a state does not arise.
And nowhere did I say that the constitution created natural law. What I said was that the constitution expresses who will be considered citizens under it (the constitution). That is not saying that the constitution creates them, any more than your words expressing what a natural citizen is, creates the natural citizen.
The subject at hand is qualification for president under the constitution, not qualification for president of the state of nature.
Yes, in essence the people who are claiming to lead the conservative movement to stop illegal immigration from further diluting of the native sovereignty, are illegally immigrating themselves into the Office of the President of the United States.
Really ? Seriously ?
So some unseen power made sure Obama in 2004 and 2008, Romney in 2012 were the nominees to subvert the eligibility clause?
Again, I ask, where does Cruz allegiance lie ?
That is the intent of all the root arguments being made against him...
The following is directly from the US Constitution. Where is the part that defines natural born citizen? The fact that is not defined is why there is so much discussion. Your definition is just that, your definition.
5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I found it so ridiculous on its face, that it wasn't even necessary to remark. "The idea that some foreign born entity will somehow get elected POTUS is really a strawman argument" - said while foreign-born (strawman?) Cruz is being advanced!
As for winning over the American people, I give you Obama, twice. To think some other foreign-born and raised Mohammedan can't get a majority of the electoral college sometime in the future is Pollyanna.
Read 18th century letters and reference works contemporary to the Framers to find your answer.
It’s there.
That’s not answering the question. The question is ‘why are they only harassing Cruz about it and not Rubio’.
The problem this country has are Ivy League scholars pinheads!
It doesn't matter what you want. The SCOTUS does it twice a year in every decision it renders.
To himself
So some unseen power made sure Obama in 2004 and 2008, Romney in 2012 were the nominees to subvert the eligibility clause?
We have had three elections in a row involving candidates of increasingly questionable eligibility-McCain, Obama, and now Ted Cruz who would be the first ever openly foreign born POTUS. And if not Ted Cruz than Marco Rubio who would be the first ever POTUS born of two non-citizen parents. Do you really not see the pattern of subersion here? 226 years of preedent washed away and you really think there's nothing to see here?
I don't care whose hand has created this pattern if any. I just want it stopped before it goes any further.
The Trump folks are going to keep gagging at gnats in their utter lust to take cruz down, and they’ll end up president open borders rubio.
There actually is a definition there if you carefully look for it but if you’re blinded by the glory of Ted Cruz, you won’t be able to see it so don’t bother looking.
You are mistaken. This has nothing to do with Donald Trump. This is about Ted Cruz and the constitution.
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.