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 ...
You want to know where Vattel is in the Constitution....???
Excuse me, but subject to the jurisdiction of a country, does indeed mean that person is a citizen of that country, and no other (unless a dual citizen in which he can subject to jurisdiction of both.) People often get subject to jurisdiction and subject to law mixed up. If you are living in another country, you are indeed subject to its laws and can get yourself deported, imprisoned, or fined (or all three) if you break those laws; you may be liable for some taxes. You are not under their jurisdiction, however. You are not issued a passport that country, you do not vote in their elections, you are not ordinarily subject to any taxes of that nation (unless you physically present in that country or hold property there, in which case you may have some tax liability) you are not required to serve in their military, you do not have the protection of that country’s embassy/consul when abroad, for examples.
It's in the penumbras.
See Roe v. Wade.
Yes. Not to put too fine a point on it. I want you to show me where the Constitution cross references “Vattel” or the “Law of Nations”. So far all I’ve been shown is that Vattel is “in” the Constitution the same way that the “right of privacy” is “in” the Constitution: by penumbral construction.
Even simpler, if his citizenship depends on a statute, he's naturalized. His citizenship depends on a statute, he's naturalized. See Rogers v. Bellei.
I don't want to get into Rubio and anchor baby stuff.
I pulled up the statue re Guam to show you by counterexample, that your contention was false, or at least had consequences that you won't like. Here is what you said, and I ask, do you still hold this to be true?
The ONLY damn thing "natural born citizen" means is that the person is an American citizen immediately upon their birth.Is the point of this 10 iteration back and forth an attempt to prove or disprove that? We don't have to prove Cruz is not an NBC, all we have to prove is that he is naturalized, citizenship depends on statute, he's not qualified.
I think you are making this issue of much bigger scope, and I am not going to have the time or patience to do that.
Bingo!
Thank you.
The presence of "two rules," one established by Wong Kim Ark, and the other by it's dissent (which looks like what you described) leads to all manner of communication breakdown in these academic discussions.
Is Vattel in the Constitution? No. If not, then his value is persuasive only. That does not get rid of the ambiguity.
Because what you think is so clear is absolutely not. I’ve read enough through it to realize that.
.............................................................
What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.
The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.â€
Vaattel ss212-Des Citoyens et naturels. Citizens and natural born citizens:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens.
Translation: The naturels, or natural born, are those who are born in the country, of parents citizens.
If that is not clear, i don’t know what is.
My point is that Vattel is no more authoritative than the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's rulings have been a bad joke.
These people want the same court that ruled that Black people are not citizens of the United States, even if they were born Free; that unborn children up to the moment of birth are not human beings; that the Constitution provides for Homosexual marriage as a fundamental constitutional right; to decide if Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen under the original intent of the Constitution?
Are they all insane?
Hey people, if you don't think Cruz is eligible, then don't vote for him. YOU, the American People, actually have a say in this matter. Exercise your right to vote.
Don't punt the ball to a bunch of ass clowns in black robes.
> Hey people, if you don’t think Cruz is eligible, then don’t vote for him. YOU, the American People, actually have a say in this matter. Exercise your right to vote.
Hey people, if you don’t think Obama is eligible, then don’t vote for him. YOU, the American People, actually have a say in this matter. Exercise your right to vote.
How has that worked out?
Because VatteThe Framers DREW UPON Vattel’s authority ti WRITE the constitution. I>E> Vattel existed BEFORE the Constitution and his works were referenced by the founders. Can you understand that? And Vattel IS in the Constitution AND the Declaration of independence. Vattel IS the EXTERNAL SOURCE from which certain sections were derived.
Obviously your loyalty DOES NOT lie with the Constitution because you are trying your damndest to change it.
idiocy? You are the idiot. The NBC definition is exact and stipulates what a contender for the Presidency must be. MUST be. Do you understand? MUST BE!
I studied Vattel a half century ago. I understand Vattel very well and no upstart smartmouth is going to alter my knowledge.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000883938;view=2up;seq=6;skin=mobile
The Vattel Lecture....he’s everywhere in the Constitution.
You must be almost as old as I am. By the way, it's been several decades since the last time anyone called me an 'upstart' or 'smartmouth,' so I have to thank you for making me feel young again!
So the American people should have no say in this matter? You think Cruz should be removed from the ballot before the election?
Would that make you happy?
The constitution of the united States with Index, and The Declaration of Independence. Copyright 2009, 2012 national Center for Constitutional Studies.
Article I, Section 8:
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.”
Vattel wrote The Law of Nations and published it first in 1758.
Vattel IS “in the constitution.”
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.