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 ...
If Cruz was a democrat ALL FReepers would say he was not eligible to run for President. It’s only because they believe like he does they are giving him a pass on this.
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.
And conversely, the existence of a country depends on it having citizens or subjects.
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.
My God. You can’t read! Now I know your problem!
Any binding ruling on the precise meaning of the NBC clause should serve to strengthen it, not weaken it.
If the Supreme Court rules that Ted is eligible, then in future, any person with one American parent, no matter where they’re born, can seek to be our president. If such a person has sufficient voter support, they can become our president.
I don’t want that, and it’s absolutely not what the Framers intended.
False.
Worse than false, it is a bald-faced intentional lie, whether it originated with you or not.
I think that’s an appropriate analogy.
“Natural Born Citizen = born on the soil of the country to two citizen parents.”
“Not necessarily so.”
“That definition is sufficient but it is not exclusive. IOW, someone who fits those qualifications is clearly a NBC, but so might others be who do NOT meet that definition. If your definition were to be accepted the following past Presidential candidates (and there may be more) would have been ineligible to take office:”
“George Romney”
George Romney was ineligible, due to his being born abroad without U.S. citizenship or with naturalized U.S. citizenship.
“Barry Goldwater”
Wrong. Barry Goldwater was eligible, because he was a natural born citizen of the U.S. Barry Goldwater was born in the Territory of Arizona with two U.S. citizen parents. The Territory of Arizona was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Slaughterhouse Cases and other cases to be a United States Incorporated Territory along with the District of Columbia and other territories forming the Organic territories of the United States under the jurisdiction of the United States.
“John McCain”
John McCain is ineligible, because he is a naturalized citizen of the U.S. He was born abroad in a hospital in Colon, Panama, which was outside the Panama Canal Zone and outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Due to his birth abroad, it makes no difference whether he was born in Panama, the Panama Canal Zone, in Japan, or anywhere else abroad, his only means of acquiring U.S. citizenship was by naturalization.
“Barack Obama”
Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible. If he was born abroad in Kenya, Canada, or elsewhere; he could not acquire U.S. citizenship at all, because his mother was too young to qualify under the applicable U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Even if Obama’s mother had been an adult mother, rather than a minor, Obama would still have been ineligible due to his acquisition of U.S. citizenship by naturalization by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. If Obama really was born in Hawaii as the forged birth certificate claims, Obama would still be ineligible due to his father being an alien citizen; because a child with an alien father acquires U.S. citizenship by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President.
“And among the current crop, both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz would be ineligible.”
Yes, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are ineligible.
“And, if the phony ‘dual citizenship’ standard were adopted, so would Donald Trump, since he is eligible for British citizenship merely asserting his right to it.”
No, that is a false statement. Donald C. Trump is eligible, because he is a natural born citizen of the United States. He was born in the jurisdiction of the United States with two U.S. citizen parents. His mother renounced her British citizenship when she naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Donald C. Trump was not naturalized as a British citizen.
Sorry, but you simply don’t know what you are talking about. This has been discussed to death on this forum, too bad you came in late.
By the way, I don’t dispute any of the FACTS you have, only that you don’t have enough of them. For example, the fact that I do not and never have harbored any doubts about Donald Trumps natural born citizenship.
But YOU need to know that Mrs. Trump’s naturalization in 1944 has NO BEARING whatsoever on the issue as framed.
Why? Simple, because Britain does not and has never recognized any renunciation of citizenship unless made in the proper form and manner to the British Home Secretary. Naturalization in another country is not recognized in Britain as an effective renunciation of citizenship. The law on this is clear, and the fact that you don’t know it is immaterial.
What you’re effectively saying is that you don’t want the Supreme Court to make a definitive decision on it then (one that you would not like, given the court’s make up).
That same Supreme Court to whom the US Constitution specifically gives the power to arbitrate issues between states, and determine ‘Constitutionality’ of laws (under which this question would fall I presume)? [this is the operative aegis the framers gave the USSC in the Constitution]
Those are pretty much the points I made, with the exception of Barry Goldwater, and I won’t argue that particular example without first reviewing the Slaughterhouse cases.
The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural-home born-and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien-foreign-born-making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.
Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)
Alot of us apologize for Jimmy. Constantly.
I did like to see him at Turner Field when I was at a game. How could I not be impressed? This was the same ex-POTUS who not only fought off a killer swamp rabbit, he lived to tell the tale.
All true, except that it won't take a Supreme Court decision to make it so. It is already so. Whether you like it or not.
seems to me it might be a decision that none of us would really care for.
Oh, I certainly think that could be possible. My whole point is that drudging up a bunch of so-called, self-appointed ‘Scholars’ to pontificate on the issue is pointless. You get a scholar and I’ll get mine, so to speak.
Academics in some disciplines are well-known for whoring out their credentials for the right carrot. Even in the case of what one would think ‘science’ there are Climate Change Whores.
Clearly, you are operating on your own wavelength.
Legally, no. Unfortunate. Then again, Obama did it with a forged birth certificate.
Well sir, I disagree. I think there is something to see here. 226 years without a foreign born President and now Ted Cruz thinks he's gonna invoke the armor of God and undo all that? Not on my watch. I will never let this go.
-It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance-. . . .
Read that again really slow so the words and what they mean slosh around your brain...
The intent of Madison maxim was the issue of allegiance...
In Madison time allegiance WAS an important and serious issue, considering Great Britain attacked America in 1812 again to try and seize her back to the throne...
Is there any doubt or evidence what country Cruz has allegiance to?
The idea that some foreign born entity will somehow get elected POTUS is really a strawman argument, whoever runs for POTUS needs to win over the american people to be the nominee...
I doubt some Syrian refugee plopped over here by Obama will be able to run the table and be POTUS
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.