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 ...
I smell a trap here. These two are maneuvering us into an constitutional showdown that ends in either foreign born NBCs or natural born anchor babies as the law of the land. I don’t want to accept either of those premises but it could very well happen.
______________________
No doubt in my mind its a trap.
I will not vote for anyone who is not NBC.
We need to take a stand.
Why?
Its the long game of immigration.
We need to take a constitutional legal stand on anchor babies etc, which is all based on similar constitutional issues. Next thing you know, everyone will be constitutionally protected and we will be unable to remove one single person from the country. Not one. It’s a set up to bait the “conservatives”; the only group that consistently sticks up for the constitution.
And both the Democrats and the Republicans are in on this. Sorry folks.
No doubt in my mind its a trap.
I will not vote for anyone who is not NBC.
We need to take a stand.
Why?
Its the long game of immigration.
To see conservatives use the left’s “birther†arguments against their own because they happen to support a candidate with doubts in this regard has been unsettling, to me at least.
___________________
I did not know that attempting to follow the constitution is a lefty proposition.
The conservatives believe in upholding Constitutional principles more than any other group. It is important to win the war, not just the battle.
This whole thing is a trap for conservatives, really, that will go to the “money” issue, illegal immigration.
We need to take a constitutional legal stand on anchor babies etc, which is all based on similar constitutional issues. Next thing you know, everyone will be constitutionally protected and we will be unable to remove one single person from the country. Not one. It’s a set up to bait the “conservativesâ€; the only group that consistently sticks up for the constitution.
And both the Democrats and the Republicans are in on this. Sorry folks.
I hate repeating my self multiple times. So, you agree with Vattel on the primacy of citizenship by family descent, but you insist on maintaining your 18th century insistence on patrilineage. How quaint of you.
Do you also insist that wives automatically follow the citizenship of their husbands? For you cannot have it both ways. You can't live with one foot in the 21st century and the other firmly planted in 1787. With the abandonment of of one came the abandonment of the other. That's why today citizenship by descent can flow from either parent and do so quite 'naturally'.
Sorry ‘bout that.
Nope and everyone but the Cruzbots know it.
I hate to break it to the Cruz supporters, but you peaked in Iowa. Have you seen the polls lately? There is no bump.
Instead of Cruz getting a momentum bump out of Iowa. Everyone thinks Cruz cheated and played dirty tricks in Iowa.
This will not play out well in future primaries.
Wellll ... kinda. See, if mama and daddy obama were not considered to have a valid marriage, due to daddy obama already being married, then little barry would be a straight up bastard. THEN he would be 100% eligible (we go with the assumption he was indeed born in HI) because a bastard childs citizenship always followed the mother - regardless. It did back then as it does now.
Who is the alien of whom you speak?
Excellent quote in support of my position. Thank you!
Please cite the Article, Section Clause in the Constitution permits Ted Cruz birth abroad citizenship.
How about YOU show me the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that does not?
You can’t cite source in the Constitution gives Ted Cruz his citizenship? lol
Since you are pressing this BS argument, here it is: Article II, Section 1 Paragraph 5.
But of course you already knew that. I hate arguing with dishonest people.
If that is true...why does Ted Cruz need the 1952 Naturalization Act..
John, I could pull out all my archived NBC data and arguments from years past, and could go at this for days, but why? To try and convince someone who’s determined to support his chosen candidate, even though it means having to turn his back on centuries of precedent and the clear intent of the Framers?
No thanks. Assuage your conscience in whatever way suits you.
Mum, I don’t think this subject is terribly complicated. It is only logical that those who are born in country to citizen parents, will be most likely to possess the purest allegiance to that country.
If the Framers felt no need to place a stricter, higher standard of eligibility on the office of President, they would never have used the phrase, “natural born citizen” at all. Let us not forget that Art II Sec I is the only place in the Constitution where it appears.
I guess people are going to argue about this until we’re all long gone but I would submit to you that the Framers would implore us to use our intelligence and hard won experiences to properly settle this.
Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen? His father was not a US citizen.
Barack Obama (assuming that he was born in Hawaii, something that I do not accept as fact for many reasons that go far beyond published information) then he is a citizen by birth as the citizenship bequeathed to him his mother would be recognized under those specific circumstances. If he were born in Kenya then he would not have been recognized as a US Citizen by birth.
I do not accept that there is a class of super-citizen by birth called natural born citizen. I believe that the terms are effectively synonymous. I base this view on a close reading of all the contemporaneous writings on the subject that were available to the Framers.
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.