Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[txrangerette]

Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.

"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.

[DiogenesLamp]

Minor v. Happersett also explicitedly states that the Constitution does not say “in words who shall be natural born citizens.”

A point I CONSTANTLY try to get through people's heads. Chief Justice Waite was Specifically referring to the 14th amendment when he made that statement, because it is on the basis of the 14th amendment that the suit was brought.

I.E. the 14th amendment does not create natural born citizens. But anyone who comprehends the natural law argument, already knew that.

[CodeToad]

“No one else gets to say what it means. “

Actually, you are dead wrong about that. We the People, alive today, get to say what rules us. They had their determination, we get to have ours.

Your claim that our future is beholden to someone else of years past is dead wrong. We get our say.

[DiogenesLamp]

However, the word “born” in “natural born citizens” suggests that “born” citizens who are statuatory are also constitutionally protected.

Your interpretation leaves no purpose for the word "natural."

[CodeToad]

“natural law argument”

Which is a bogus argument. Anything that is natural law cannot be argued, such as gravity. Who is a citizen is arguable and therefore not “natural law”. Hells Bells, I can get 10 people in a room arguing this subject and we’ll get 11 opinions about who is a citizen. That isn’t natural law.

[CodeToad]

“Your interpretation leaves no purpose for the word “natural.””

I looked up ‘natural’. It said nothing about “two parents this or that”. You argue the word ‘natural’ like liberals argue the phrase “common sense”. In fact, in your argument they are synonyms of each other; “Why of course two parents..., it’s common sense”.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is, however, one former US law that does define “natural born citizen”. That is the law of 1790. It defined natural born to include those born overseas to US parents. So, blood descent was also considered “natural born” by that law.

Do you like that part of the law that forbids citizenship to the children of a foreign father?

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Not only are such children not "natural born citizens" they are not even citizens at all.

I really really really do not understand why you keep quoting a law which blows your argument to bits.

And you also keep not noticing that it is a NATURALIZATION Law.

[SoConPubbie]

No my friend. It is the intent of the DELEGATES that has to be the determination of the definition of Natural born citizen. No one else created the law. No one else gets to say what it means.

The opinion of anyone who wasn't there is hearsay.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

They started this process of constitutional governance and left us with the Constutition which has been amended many times. And while the original intent will, and should, be taken into consideration if any further adjustments to the Constitution is made, the process for Amending the constitution is plainly laid out by that Constitution and it is that through that process, if necessary, that the Definition of "Natural Born" citizen will be defined. As defined in the Constitution, is not required for the intent to be taken into consideration, it should be, but it is not required.

If that were the case, we would still have the 3/5ths requirement with regards to the citizenship of black men.

In other words, original intent is important, but it is not the only measure as to any issue before the Supreme Court today.

[DiogenesLamp]

writing to xzins, BuckeyeTexan said: Today, SCOTUS would likely rule with you.

But it wouldn't make either of them factually correct.

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

Tu quoque.

Oh, you mean like this?

" Someone who does not comprehend this is not worth arguing with. "

That statement is factually correct. Anyone who believes (and cannot be dissuaded from) that Federal law trumps constitutional law, there is no hope for.

The Federal statute "tail" cannot wag the Constitutional "Dog."

[SoConPubbie]

FRiend, honesty, seems to be in short supply, on your part, with that post.

If you were being honest with yourself, you would have admitted, that you probably had stepped over the line, but instead, apparently, being “right” is more important than being honest.

[SoConPubbie]

That statement is factually correct. Anyone who believes (and cannot be dissuaded from) that Federal law trumps constitutional law, there is no hope for.

BTW, Federal Law is considered Constitutional until proven otherwise by the Supreme Court Ruling, Amended by the Amendment Process, or the law in question is changed by Congress, because it considers it Unconstitutional.

That is the process, as defined, by the Constitution.

[onyx]

Thanks very much, SoConPubbie. I think, these futile arguments will only be tolerated for a limited time.

[SoConPubbie]

Thanks very much, SoConPubbie. I think, these futile arguments will only be tolerated for a limited time.

Yup, I'm pretty sure that Jim will shut down this argument in a matter of time.

It, however, is a necessary, if not onerous, excercise for the time being.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you very much for the facts. Much appreciated and hope everyone learns from your comments.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nowhere, in the US Constitution, does it define or state that Laws concerning Citizenship have to be defined, explicitly, in the Constitution. Therefore, it is left up to EITHER Congress OR the Amendment process to define what "Natural Born" is.

Natural born is axiomatic. The fact that it is "natural" means it is not man-made. A definition by law makes no more sense than defining a natural mathematical constant by law.

There currently is no definition defining "Natural Born" as requiring two citizen parents, therefore,

There very much *IS* a definition defining "natural born citizen" as requiring two citizen parents, and this definition has been the default norm for the last 3500 years. This latest "British Law" based nonsense only goes back to about 1600 and includes all sorts of modifications, redefinitions and inconsistencies. Even the British didn't use it regarding the eligibility requirements of their chief executive.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Counsel will so stipulate, Your Honor. ;p

[DiogenesLamp]

There are no Supreme Court rulings that establish/define "Natural Born" as requiring 2 citizen parents.

There are several supreme court rulings that simply acknowledge that the 2 citizen parents (really just the father) rule is the standard which they use.

Furthermore, as being Delegates themselves, they are in a position to know better than subsequent Supreme court justices.

[SoConPubbie]

Natural born is axiomatic. The fact that it is "natural" means it is not man-made. A definition by law makes no more sense than defining a natural mathematical constant by law.

And yet, as this thread shows, both today and during the time-period that the founders were alive, there were and are multiple definitions of what it actually means. Furthermore, even if you were correct, the current Congress and Supreme Court would not agree with you in anything resembling a majority.

You want this to mean something, that much I get; you can even point to some evidence that SOME people agree with your definition at SOME point in history. Your problem is that you will never be able to convince near enough people of the correctness of your position to be able to make an effective change.

There just is not enough solid evidence to prove your point.

You're jousting at wind mills.

[SoConPubbie]

There are several supreme court rulings that simply acknowledge that the 2 citizen parents (really just the father) rule is the standard which they use.

Nope, there are not.

I've been paying attention to these "Natural Born" threads for some time and have as yet to see any Supreme Court Ruling that cements the meaning as 2 citizen parents.

Please prove me wrong by posting the relevant rulings.

[DiogenesLamp]

Does not matter.

Legality in the US is established by the US Constitution, US Laws, and Rulings of the US Supreme Court.

Are you going for actual facts, or made up pretend facts like Roe v Wade?

If you don't care whether or not your rulings are built on made up pretend facts, then by all means, accept the latest wind-vane pronouncements of the court as Real.

Me? I could personally never live with playing make believe when it came to what is the truth over what is false.