Posted on 01/19/2016 12:05:02 PM PST by Faith Presses On
>>It doesn’t work that way. Constitutional issues are not voted on. They are determined in the courts.<<
Of course the author wants court of popular opinion to decide. Look how easy they have manipulated the “civilized” world into non-action.
That’s one possible outcome. Another is this crap actually goes to the Court which would promptly rule in favor of Cruz. Not on the merits of the case, but because we can’t allow such an inequity as the NBC requirement.
“Akhil Reed Amar is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches constitutional law at both Yale College and Yale Law School. His work has won awards from both the American Bar Association and the Federalist Society. He has been favorably cited by Supreme Court justices across the spectrum in over 30 cases (citing to four different books and more than a dozen distinct articles), and he regularly testifies before Congress at the invitation of both Republicans and Democrats”
https://www.law.yale.edu/akhil-reed-amar
“A Legal Affairs poll placed Amar among the top 20 contemporary US legal thinkers”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Amar
Yet, he still doesn’t know jack.
so whatever states decide is ok.....as long as it isn’t a ban on gay marriage
This is treasonous idiocy.
We follow the Constitution, not vice-versa.
Disputes on it’s meaning, for better or worse, are decided in court.
I see the attacks on our constitution are intensifying. Thanks a lot Ted Cruz. I hope I get to vote for your primary opponent when you run for reelection here in Texas.
Wonderfull
IF both the DNC and RNC put up Saudi Prince’s, and agree not to litigate each other’s POTUS candidate, THE PEOPLE have to bend over and take it??
Ridicuolus
So you’re no lawyer but you know what the legal definition is based only on your gut, and what THE DONALD told you. This is like the rubes who blindly followed Obama.
Unless the Constitution itself indicated they should be. In this case, it does. On this matter, it’s the principle of small, limited government not taking on powers that should be the people’s. This matter falls into a deliberately created gray area, and as such it’s a question to be weighed about the candidates along with every other consideration about them.
I have to wonder if what this is really about isn’t Cruz or the Constitution, but the matter of illegal immigrants and Democrats. Like somehow Cruz running will open the door more to them. It won’t. It’s all the other doors illegitimately opened that have and will continue to.
It’s not dumb. Even occasionally liberals get something right.
The Constitution didn’t decide the question. What might have been in the Constitution writers’ minds doesn’t count legally (and the first law on it did grant NBC to citizens born outside the U.S.)
And then there have been two centuries of law on citizenship, which affects NBC. Also two centuries of change in the world. Where in 1800 Cruz’s Canadian birth truly might matter, it doesn’t now.
And the whole point, the ONLY rationale for NBC, is the matter of one’s allegiances. In the world back then, every other country they were dealing with were monarchies. The situation is very different now.
Ahhh, the Constitution is a “living document”
Thanks for decloaking.
In part. The public gets things both right and wrong.
And often it gets it wrong only with the secular humanist media’s help, to artfully twist and omit as they see fit.
I noticed that since the Iranians have released their American prisoners, not once on NBC’s television newscasts was there a profile of all the prisoners.
Never any mention of Pastor Saeed and why he was imprisoned.
And of course they will omit that information because they simply don’t want it broadcast on national television about Pastor Saeed, because they know too many people will have a reaction to that that they don’t want them to have.
The original meaning, born here of citizen parents, has been morphed to “born a citizenâ€.
The change does make anchor babies eligible, along with Winston Churchill and Ted Cruz and Obama.
The original definition was intended to protect us from foreign influence. If one could be considered anything other than an American at birth, one cannot be a natural born citizen.
Think whatever you want.
But I know the Constitution writers had every opportunity to simply enshrine requirements for NBC, and for citizenship in general, if they chose to. They DIDN’T. Amazing how many people simply choose to ignore that, and say that means that whatever MIGHT have been in the Constitution writers’ minds, that is somehow the law!
If you went and read the Constitution right now, you’d see they went into GREAT DETAIL on all sorts of things, but left NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN undefined. No word on it WHATSOEVER!
Where the Constitution as it was both written and understood then by its writers is faithful to the Bible, I read it just as they did. But where it doesn’t, I don’t.
And where people are actually just simply misinterpreting something written in it, I don’t agree with their misinterpretation.
But that wasn’t the settled original understanding, even. Yes, it only last five years, 1790 to 1795, but the first understanding actually put into law by Congress in 1790 was that someone was NBC if their parents were citizens and their father had resided on U.S. soil.
And ultimately, once again, the sole rationale for NBC - the Constitution writers’ intent - concerned the matter of allegiances.
Think of the world, politically, back then, versus today.
Citizenship laws themselves have also changed at different times, as has the world on the whole.
Ted Cruz had one American parent, another who had lived in the U.S. for some years; they merely worked in Canada for some years in an effort to start a business; he was born in Canada but came back to the U.S. at age 4 and was raised here.
Going for the moment on the underlying purpose for NBC, where is the possible allegiance problem?
Meanwhile, look at how often American and Western-born Muslims are taking up jihad.
Then I guess you will be Ok with the guy who was born to a citizen Mom in Iran and held duel citizenship into his 40s if it comes up in the future? I am not worried about Cruz. He is a good man. I am worried about the radical that may get elected in the future if this precedent is set.
Amar is part of the legal cabal that dupes the public on important issues.
You’re the one who wants the meaning of the Constitution to be decided by popular vote. That, friend, is beyond “living constitution” and is mob rule - which is to say no rule.
You do realize that the party can, outside of the courts altogether, find Cruz unqualified. The party has no obligation to run cover for an unqualified candidate, and does not need a court stepping in to say “you can’t run a 33 year old,” etc.
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.