You asserted:There is no SCOTUS decision equating natural born citizenship with citizenship at birth, and absent that you’re just making stuff up.
It is good form to actually read the reply to which you are addressing your remarks.
Posted on 01/16/2016 7:59:19 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Thursday following FBN's broadcast of the Republican presidential debate, Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe attacked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97%, one of the participants in last night debate, for his stated on reasoning for his eligibility to run for president of the United States.
According to Tribe, Cruz applies a double standard to his interpretation of the Constitution, to which he deemed Cruz to be a "constitutional opportunist" and a "hypocrite."
"I've done a lot of historical research on it, and so have a lot of other people, and the best evidence seems to be that what they meant in 1788 was something more than just citizen from birth," he said. "They actually meant a citizen whose birth was sort of natural, not in a biological sense but in the sense of connection to the land. The idea was, that it was something that Congress couldn't change, unlike the naturalization process, which Congress has monkeyed around with all the time. I mean, for example, in 1934, the first time it said, you can be a citizen who doesn't need to get naturalized as long as your mom was an American citizen. And that's ultimately the basis on which Cruz has to rely.
The funny thing is, that the kind of guy Cruz is, he's always been this way. When he was my student he was this way. He's always said the Constitution always means the same thing that it meant when it was adopted. That's why he made this funny joke to Trump, you know, saying, the Constitution didn't change since last September. Well, he thinks it didn't change since 1788 when it comes to gays and, you know, women and other things. But when it comes to his own ambition, he's suddenly becomes what he accuses me of being, and it's a pretty true accusation, a judicial activist. That's not the guy he is normally."
"He's being a constitutional opportunist, a hypocrite," Tribe continued. "It's sad, because he makes light of it, but it is a genuine open question, and there's no way of getting around it. Like if he's the nominee, it won the be hard to imagine some secretary of state somewhere simply refusing to put him on the ballot on the ground that that secretary of state is also an originalist and thinks, if you weren't born on the land of the United States, then you just can't run. At that point, somebody would have to sue them, whether it's Ted Cruz himself as the nominee, if that's what we've got, or the Republican National Committee. There's no way to avoid an issue like that going to the Supreme Court. And the irony is, the liberals on the court, assuming they all voted according to principle, as opposed to politics. It isn't always that way, the liberals on the court, the activists would go with Cruz, and the originalists if they were true to their position like Scalia, would vote against him."
Just picked this as an example that, as far as action on the ground is concerned, the question is open.
Blame Trump for not being conservative friendly in the way he handled the issue. But don’t blame Trump for being unperceptive.
It might even be a coup de grace to have brought the issue up now. Cruz needs to stop and think how he can avoid the trap. Either try to ease up on Constitutional fundamentalism (which is what he ought to do if he is Christ-first anyhow) or just bow out.
But if he won’t, or if attitude adjustment isn’t enough, then the trap may spring mercifully early, or at lest the doubt factor keep him beneath Trump in polling.
I think we need a SENATOR Cruz. I really do. He is more senatorial in temperament, representing some of the ideal qualities of this august body.
In order to be a NBC, BOTH parents MUST be an AMERICAN CITIZEN at the time of said child's birth, unless said child is born out of wedlock and then said child can be a NBC, IF the mother fulfills ALL of the rules and regulations for same. The parents can be NBCs or naturalized, it doesn't matter, but they BOTH must be AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Cruz WAS born an American citizen, through his mother, but NOT an NBC, as his father didn't become a citizen until 2005 !
Ummmm, if you bothered to peruse the article above, it is Larry Tribe who speaks of Cruz as his student.
Yes, he should stay in the Senate, in which he IS eligible to serve.
You asserted:There is no SCOTUS decision equating natural born citizenship with citizenship at birth, and absent that you’re just making stuff up.
It is good form to actually read the reply to which you are addressing your remarks.
Quite sometime back I read Tribe would attack his own mother if she was a conservative.
Oh good grief...PLEASE stop posting that unalloyed crap!
You haven’t the vaugest idea what you’re talking about!
Name them.
Name them.
You’re lying through your teeth again.
Ted Cruz was born outside of the United States to a mother who was a US Citizen. Ted was eligible for citizenship at birth because his mother was a US Citizen and she met the statutes within the Naturalizaton Laws passed by Congress at the time. Ted was able to retain his citizenship because he moved to the US and has been residing within the US since. Hypothetically, If Ted failed to move to the US before a specific age (Can’t recall, and I’m too tired to look it up right now) he would have lost his citizenship as he would have failed to adhere to the requirements with the Naturalization law to maintain his citizenship. Thus he would have to be naturalized as a foreigner.
In the end, Ted only received citizenship through law/statues enacted by Congress and there for is a naturalized citizen albeit at birth, but is not a natural-born citizen.
Mother Jones was used to argue that Cruz is ineligible today. Mother Jones!
well, HUMPH :-)
And an ass told off Balaam.
If you want to see what makes this world do what it does, don’t look AT it. Look PAST it.
I point you to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Now, what I need from you is the US Code or law that states the Qualifications for a natural born citizen.
I am not a lawyer, but after reading the US Code cited above, if I meet one of those qualifications at birth, I assume myself to be a natural born citizen.
If “Citizen at birth” and “Natural Born Citizen” are two different things legally, you need to show me that. Show me the US CODE, not your opinion stating it isn’t.
No, none, not a one of our past presidents have been born outside of the USA !
That’s at least with a smile. Grim lying is even worse....
Seriously?
The GOVERNMENT of this once great nation supplies study guides to all people who are about to take the test to become NATURALIZED CITIZENS. In that book, it states that in order to become the president or vice president of these United States, BOTH PARENTS MUST BE AMERICAN CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD'S BIRTH!
It was also taught to grammar school kids, prior to the 1970s, when schools stopped teaching much factual history.
There are actual four types of citizens, NBC,naturalized, those at birth here on our soil...excluding those whose parents are diplomats and other such, and those who are also just plain old citizens through a parent though NOT NBC!
This isn't rocket science nor brain surgery. Good grief!
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.