Well, you are making two arguments.
First, Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did have American citizenship at the time of his birth IN THE UNITED STATES.
Second, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen because his mother, an American citizen, married a non-citizen, and temporarily moved to Canada, where Ted was born.
You are drawing comparisons to non-American citizens, who move to the United States for a few months before their child’s birth, have they baby in the US, then move back to their home country.
If you don’t see a distinction, I don’t know what to tell you.
Rubio lived the rest of his life in the United States, and Cruz moved back at the age of four.
You cite a case, from the Roe V Wade court, as proof, when the case doesn’t even discuss the issue of natural born citizen.
And it’s not really an ad-hominem court. That was one of the most destructive Supreme Courts in history. That’s pretty factual, if you hold conservative beliefs.
This argument about English common law is quite silly too. In my young law school career, I’ve encountered numerous cases where an American court cites to a English court in delivering its opinion.
Some of you act like we completely severed from England in every aspect.
That first sentence should read “Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did NOT have American citizenship at the time of his birth in the United States.
First, Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did have American citizenship at the time of his birth IN THE UNITED STATES.
I am making no such argument about Rubio. I did not bring up or mention Rubio throughout this entire thread until now. That you can imagine I have, demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention.
Second, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen because his mother, an American citizen, married a non-citizen, and temporarily moved to Canada, where Ted was born.
This part you get right.
You are drawing comparisons to non-American citizens, who move to the United States for a few months before their child’s birth, have they baby in the US, then move back to their home country.
I do not consider such people to be citizens. That is YOUR goofy belief.
If you don’t see a distinction, I don’t know what to tell you.
And if you can't see a distinction between an anchor baby being a "natural born citizen" and that of someone born here to two American parents, then I don't know what to tell YOU.
Rubio lived the rest of his life in the United States, and Cruz moved back at the age of four.
What has that got to do with a requirement regarding the circumstances of birth? There isn't a clause in article II granting exceptions for someone who's lived here after the age of four, it ruthlessly demands someone be "natural born."
You cite a case, from the Roe V Wade court, as proof, when the case doesn’t even discuss the issue of natural born citizen.
This serves two purposes. If you claim the court is wrong on Bellei, then you can't claim them as being always right. If you claim that they are always right, then your argument for Cruz smashes against their ruling for Bellei.
You are trapped on the horns of a dilemma. You are wrong no matter which way you interpret the data.
And it’s not really an ad-hominem court. That was one of the most destructive Supreme Courts in history. That’s pretty factual, if you hold conservative beliefs.
Oh, I don't disagree with that at all, but then I am the one arguing that something is true just because a court says so. I have very little faith in the pronouncements of the Supreme court. I think they are wrong a lot!
I happen to think they are correct in their ruling on Bellei though. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
This argument about English common law is quite silly too. In my young law school career, I’ve encountered numerous cases where an American court cites to a English court in delivering its opinion.
Much of English law is directly transferable to American law. Much of it is not. Citizenship v Subjectship happens to be one of those cases where American law deviated greatly from English law. Under English subjectship law, (at the time, since changed) a subject must owe perpetual allegiance to the crown, and could not legally renounce their subject status.
The very basis of this nation's existence is the renunciation of English Subject law.