As buzz mounts, Ted Cruz’s White House eligibility again questioned

Washingon Times ^

[Perdogg]

Ted Cruz’s address at the annual South Carolina Republican Party dinner Friday helped feed growing speculation that the freshman senator from Texas is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — and raised yet another round of questions about his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.

Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother and Cuban-born father, and was a citizen from birth — but that Canadian factor puts him in the company of other past candidates who have had their eligibility questioned because of the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”

[allmendream]

Not honest. Not cool. You should be more interested in the crow you need to eat than parrots.

[BuckeyeTexan]

What I had in mind was more along the lines of the Kenyan BC on the red bedspread.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope. Don’t need to hear more.

Not surprised. Common problem nowadays.

[DiogenesLamp]

What I had in mind was more along the lines of the Kenyan BC on the red bedspread.

I thought as much, but you painted with a broad brush. Not all who have been labeled "birther" are in that "born in Kenya" camp. I personally find the idea far fetched. The money and logistics simply do not work.

Jeff is not arguing the "birth in Kenya" issue, to my knowledge. This discussion is specifically regarding whether the founders intended that the meaning of "natural born citizen" should be applied to anyone born inside the borders, or whether or not they had more stringent requirements, such as birth to an American father.

Jeff seizes upon comments from various figures in history, and attempts to force their words to fit his argument. Some of them agree with him, i'll admit to that. Jeff has his supporters in the Historical record. However, Jeff grabs a whole bunch of other people who are not clearly supporters or even relevant, and claims them as if they were. He also dismisses any evidence which proves the contrary. (such as that page I showed you.)

Jeff asserts that he is reasonable, and attempts to portray himself as such, but in fact he is as bitterly partisan and subjective as anyone you will find. Just thought you should know there is another side of which you might not be aware.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

This part is true, but misleading. The topic isn't "citizen" but is instead "natural citizen."

Not misleading at all to anyone who bothers to read my entire answer rather than reacting to each sentence separately. I gave charlene4 credit for being able to do that.

This part is also true, and again misleading. It presupposes that the opinion of a quantity of people means the same thing as "true."

I expressed no opinion on truth. Most people making an honest inquiry into a subject would want to know what other people had concluded. She can weigh that fact against your claim to be the arbiter of truth and draw her own conclusions.

I gave a very limited answer to what seemed like a specific point of confusion on charlene4's part. Now that she knows that nobody here is arguing for letting naturalized citizens be president, she has a better context for the other arguments.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I thought as much, but you painted with a broad brush. Not all who have been labeled "birther" are in that "born in Kenya" camp.

That wasn't my intent. So to those whom I may have painted, I apologize. I should have been more careful with my choice of words. I have argued the point myself that not all birthers subscribe to the Kenya theory.

I'm aware of his arguments. I tried to make the point that legal interpretations, including my own, are speculation not hard facts.

[DiogenesLamp]

I expressed no opinion on truth. Most people making an honest inquiry into a subject would want to know what other people had concluded. She can weigh that fact against your claim to be the arbiter of truth and draw her own conclusions.

I am not "arbiting truth" i'm pointing out the use of fallacies in your arguments. The citation of numbers is a very old and well known fallacy. It implores people to believe something because a whole bunch of other people believe it. It is not proof that something is true.

[DiogenesLamp]

Fair enough.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

i'm pointing out the use of fallacies in your arguments.

But I didn't make an argument! There was no "argumentum" to be "ad numerum." I didn't implore her to believe anything; I didn't even express my own opinion.

I can't help but think you just don't like the fact that most people disagree with you and are annoyed that I drew attention to it.

[DiogenesLamp]

But I didn't make an argument! There was no "argumentum" to be "ad numerum." I didn't implore her to believe anything; I didn't even express my own opinion.

And I quote:

... and most people who've examined the law and the historical background have concluded that "born a citizen" means the same as "natural born citizen."

From message 312.

I can't help but think you just don't like the fact that most people disagree with you and are annoyed that I drew attention to it.

Of course i'm annoyed with it. It is the promulgation of a fallacious understanding of a legal point by means of a fallacious argument. (That enough people believing something makes it true.)

It is hard enough to get accuracy on this issue without people resorting to fallacious appeals to numbers, popularity, authority, and repetition. Good God people, didn't you study Logic and Fallacies in College?

Monkeys screech at spectacle, Men Reason.

[ObligedFriend]

What about a disbarred attorney, drug addict and mental patient? Would this person be qualified to discuss what the Founders thought?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

And I quote:...

C'mon, dude, you're not that dumb. My observing what most people have concluded is no more an argument than a statement that "most early astronomers believed the sun went around the Earth" would mean that I was arguing for geocentrism.

[Jeff Winston]

What about a disbarred attorney, drug addict and mental patient? Would this person be qualified to discuss what the Founders thought?

I would think that would depend on the person. In your case, no.

[DiogenesLamp]

I had typed up a response, but then I decided to just delete it. It is just not worth quibbling about.

[Tau Food]

If Bellei had perfected his "citizenship by birth" by residing in the United States for the requisite time period and had also met the age and fourteen year residency requirements in the Constitution and then run for president, he would in my opinion have been constitutionally qualified to run for president. Of course, I only have one vote as a voter and other people (like you) might disagree with me and all of us would be free to try to influence the opinions of other voters and their electors. However, if Bellei then received a majority of the votes of the electors in the electoral college, he would become president.

The Constitution grants to the voters and their electors the power and duty to judge the qualifications of presidential candidates. You may not always like the outcome of this American system for picking presidents, but you might not always like the outcome of any system that allows people other than yourself to participate in making decisions. The alternative Iranian system that has a small, elite group of people (the Guardian Council) screen presidential candidate "qualifications" is designed to protect a tyranny run by an elitist clique.

[Tau Food]

You CAN'T Change the meaning of words in the US Constitution by voting on a NEW MEANING for them.

If there is a disagreement about the meaning of words in the US Constitution and their application to real live presidential candidates, how do you propose that the disagreement be resolved, if not by a vote? I suspect you think that presidential candidate qualifications should be judged by a private vote at the Supreme Court. I prefer that candidate qualifications be judged by a vote of the American people and by the electors that the American people select.

The text of the Constitution commits to the people and to their electors the power and duty to select our presidents. History and tradition (57 straight presidential elections) demonstrate our commitment to and satisfaction with our present constitutional process. The Supreme Court has never even hinted that it might attempt to claim a power to overrule the judgment of the American people and their electors that a particular candidate is qualified to serve as president.

[highball]

Interesting to quote Russell, but you are quite incorrect if you think I haven’t studied your “evidence”.

Quite the contrary; like any good conspiracy theory, yours dissipates quickly in the light of actual facts. Your position has none to offer.

[DiogenesLamp]

Interesting to quote Russell, but you are quite incorrect if you think I haven’t studied your “evidence”.

Quite the contrary; like any good conspiracy theory, yours dissipates quickly in the light of actual facts. Your position has none to offer.

Your usage of the words "conspiracy theory" demonstrate you to be lying. I have studiously maintained that there is no "conspiracy theory". Obviously you haven't studied "My" evidence.

[DiogenesLamp]

On one side, we have the Father of our Constitution. On the other, a Swiss writer who died when we were still subjects of the king. The choice is pretty clear to me.

And since you brought it up, what part of English Law justifies Subjects breaking away from the Crown?

The other day I was thinking about all the animosity directed at the idea that "natural born citizen" might have come from a Swiss writer. Then I got to thinking, Where in English law or Philosophy is a notion that a group of people can throw off a Monarchy?

And then I got to thinking about the Swiss. Do you know anything about the history of the Swiss? Where else in History did a group of people throw off their rulers and form their own country? Where was the precedent for the United States of America to follow?

Here's a f***ing clue for you.

[DiogenesLamp]

This one...

Kinda resembles this one.

At least conceptually.