Posted on 01/17/2016 4:37:25 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
In recent weeks, much time and effort has been devoted to debating whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency. Whichever way you come down on this question of constitutional interpretation, the real lesson of this debate should be the absurdity of excluding naturalized citizens from the presidency in the first place. Categorically excluding immigrants from the presidency is a form of arbitrary discrimination based on place of birth (or, in a few cases, parentage), which is ultimately little different from discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Both ethnicity and place of birth are morally arbitrary characteristics which do not, in themselves, determine a person's competence or moral fitness for high political office.
The "natural born" citizen requirement was originally inserted into the Constitution because some of the Founders feared that European royalty or nobles might move to the United States, get elected to the presidency, and then use the office to advance the interests of their houses. Whatever the merits of this concern back in the 1780s, it is hardly a plausible scenario today.
One can argue that immigrants have less knowledge of the country and its customs, and might make worse presidents for that reason. But that problem is surely addressed by the constitutional requirement that a candidate for president must have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. As a practical matter, anyone who attains the political connections and public recognition needed to make a serious run for the presidency is likely to have at least as much knowledge of the US and American politics as most serious native-born candidates do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Another poster said he would change it so that it said unambiguously that only people who were born within the geographic limitations of the US to parents who are both US citizens at the time of that birth (I paraphrase somewhat). I don’t agree on the substance, but I do agree that his proposal would be absolutely clear and that, at the least, would be substantially better than what we have now.
..........................................................
That is exactly what we have now. YOU and others like you would try to weaken the constitution with your BS STAND being changed and WEAKENED no doubt. It is not my fault nor the fault of the constitution that you were not taught what the Constitution said and/or do not have the mental capacity to understand what is clear, and simple to understand.
This is all the rage at the moment precisely because of Cruz’s ineligibility so spin your soap bubbles however you wish. Trying to have an Article 5 at this time , given the state of the low mentality of some, would be a waste of time and a waste of money as well as a RiSK to do damage to our founding Document.....which is the OBJECTIVE of PROGRESSIVES.
Ocean, you lost all street creds when you
think its good getting rid of NBC requirements.
Hoosiermama has a long... history of
supporting the NBC clause. (She had a great mentor on federal laws too).
We have seen what bad things happen to a country when
a usurper gains control of its government. The Founders
continue to prove they were inspired and gifted.
Wow.
humblegunner called me a “slut” - “bitch” - “whore” ect. All tagged for abuse.
These are not nice words from a “very nice guy.”
I see things very clearly now.
Read Vattel. It could not be more clear if you have two working cells between the ears.
Is Vattel in the Constitution? It’s a simple yes or no answer, are you capable of answering that question?
So far we have Joseph (source and nation of citizenship irrelevant. He could be Tasmanian) and Mary (another alien citizen) giving birth to naturalized citizen Curley, and citizens Moe and Larry.
******************************************************************************
No, I want the case to have Joseph and Mary be American (& Guam) citizens from birth. Sorry, during the time I was writing and posting post #320, your #319 came in crossing “in the wire”.
Good thing I’m not looking for creds, street or otherwise. I’m going for reasonableness and rationality, and the NBC idiocy has neither.
Then you have rocks in your head. It is perfectly clear. Did you have reading with comprehension in your school? Obviously not!
Why are you evading such a simple question. Is Vattel in the Constitution? Yes or no? I thought your allegiance was to the Constitution, but you seem to be more loyal to Vattel than you are to the Constitution. So I was correct to question your loyalty.
Hiya Duchess. Welcome to the fray. And thanks.
BTW, this is a very roundabout way to get to the point of "Cruz is naturalized." If you agree that Cruz is naturalized, we can stop this discussion right now.
Vattel IS in the constitution, Can’t you read?
First we need to teach Vattel to you.
You have been extraordinarily resistant to his ideas.
I can read the Constitution, and I don’t see “Vattel” in it, nor do I see a cross-reference to it. Where does your loyalty lie, to the Constitution, or to Vattel? Answer the question, yes or no.
My guess is that Oceander can read a whole lot better than you.
So, you insist that Vattel is IN the Constitution. Great.
Article, Section and Clause, please.
Are you insane, there were only three stooges!
Curley Moe Larry and what, Fred Astaire?
If Vattel is that clear, why is it that you have so completely failed to understand him?
The anchor baby may or may not be a natural born citizen, at this point, it is being said that he is. But if the constitution is to be taken at its face, the anchor baby cannot be president because he does not have two citizen parents. But, it seems those great constitutionalists, the Cruzers, want to change that, loving the constitution as they do! Indeed it seems the only way to save the constitution, according to their way of thinking, is to ignore the constitution.
I wonder if the whole point of the Cruz candidacy is an attempt to push the conservatives/Republicans into being the ones to utterly destroy the constitutional requirement regarding the presidency, to legitimate Obama no matter where he was born, and to ensure that in the future anchor babies, jihadists, foreign princes, etc., occupy the white house, and soverignity, national identity, culture, traditions, and even language are lost not to mention free elections and the bill of rights.
The more I think about it, the more certain I am that supporting Cruz is a big mistake, and not only that, but we should be pushing our next GOP congress to re-affirm the original constitutional requirements and ensure that never again does a man with Obama’s dubious citizenship issues ever again occupy the white house.
We saw with FDR that more than 2 terms for a president was a big mistake, and so is this Obama experiment, waiving the constitutional requirements. How can a President Ted Cruz possibly uphold the constitution with any legitimacy when his presidency is tainted with questions of legitimacy?
Please Cruz-bots, stop being fools, hate Trump if you must, but for all of our sakes, support another candidate whose eligibility is without question who will at least stem the destructive tide for at least a little while longer and do no further damage, until God can raise up a man or a woman who can speak loudly and clearly over the political correctness of all the media, who is not afraid to plainly speak his mind, who will fight back when attacked, who is beholden to no special interests, who can generate excitement, optimism, and support from all walks of life, who can articulate clearly the perils we are facing when no one else will and promise that he will do his best to protect us against those perils, and whose natural born status is without question.
Eventually, God will raise up such a person, and when He does, will you have the sense to realize it, or will you insist upon undermining the constitution even further with a tainted candidate who cannot possibly deliver on any of his promises?
I agree with your post, but I don’t understand the “HELL NO”. What is that referenced to?
Yep!
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.