Posted on 01/19/2016 12:05:02 PM PST by Faith Presses On
Oops, Bethlehem! Half the brain engaged. Damn, do I feel dumb on that one!
“And couldn’t someone be born on American soil and acquire dual citizenship later.”
Cruz was not born on American soil and he could have renounced his Canadian citizenship before he was 44 years old or so.
And on what you say, I don’t agree and I’m not persuaded.
But at this point, I’m not going to argue about it anymore with you. There’s only so much time to be spent on things, and I’m convinced the anti-Cruz candidacy position is straining out an imaginary gnat to swallow a camel.
I discuss and argue the little details of things all the time, because they actually are significant, but I believe this matter isn’t, and have seen no persuasive evidence for it.
Something that’s an example of being worthwhile to look at is how the first leaders of America formally got together for prayer, and called for days and occasions of prayer. That’s in contradiction to much of what we’ve been told today.
This is just aimless, though. No real legal foundation for it, no remedy but the one its proponents say isn’t the proper one (the court of public opinion), and no possibility for success in that because public opinion, rightfully in this case, won’t disqualify someone who was born an American citizen in a foreign country. On the face of it, it insults all the people who have spent time in other countries now, either for school, work, or perhaps to follow a spouse, that if they did or might have had children in those countries, their influence on their children wouldn’t have been enough to make them a reasonably-committed American, even if the child was for the most part raised in America. The public, which the politicians consider the ultimate judge in the matter, isn’t going to buy that.
I knew it was a pointless discussion, going in. I've read lots of your posts.
> it insults all the people who have spent time in other countries now, either for school, work, or perhaps to follow a spouse, that if they did or might have had children in those countries, their influence on their children wouldn’t have been enough to make them a reasonably-committed American,
My you look marvelous in that Flag, the way it drapes about your shoulders. Magnificent!
C'MON!
He's just barely a US citizen, never mind an NBC.
“Just barely a U.S. citizen”? According to what law?
Then Bill and Hillary Clinton must be way above him.
And the more generations one’s parents have been in the country, the more the U.S. citizen, I suppose.
What about natural-born Muslim-Americans? Or NBC’s that convert to Islam? or become atheists?
You removed the context from my quote.
The fact of the matter is, there is no legal mechanism for checking eligibility, and no way to challenge it but for public opinion.
And how many people out there will consider themselves, their children, or maybe people they know to be ineligible, to be raising Constitutionally ineligible children by virtue of spending some time in another country.
People are going to judge this in part by relating this to their own lives.
And I’d rather be spending this time responding to all that secular humanists are planning and getting away with right now, rather than this true non-issue.
Something is always learned, but I don’t consider going into this matter the best use of time and resources, and I’ve only gone into it as much as I have in order to argue that. Arguing for the best use of time and resources is the best use of time and resources, I believe.
Why yes...yes they are. Both NBCs, but they're communists.
And the more generations one's parents have been in the country, the more the U.S. citizen, I suppose.
Well you suppose wrong. Naturalized status is sufficient.
What about natural-born Muslim-Americans? Or NBC's that convert to Islam? or become atheists?
That has nothing to do with their eligibility, only their electability. (hopefully)
A “non-issue”?
Noted.
Bye.
Most people who are taking Trump’s side on this seem to be troubled not by Cruz’s candidacy, but “the possibility of others.” So what sort of negative scenarios do you imagine coming from this?
And are you troubled by all the matters you’re not dealing with while you deal with this? I know I am.
One of the greatest losses FR sustained was the death of John Armour from colon cancer. John was a constitutional attorney from Asheville (NC) who went by the FReeper handle "Congressman Billybob." Back when eligibility issues first surfaced after the 2008 election, John explained the situation much the way this article does.
I'm not necessarily "taking Trump's side" but Sarah Palin is. What more can I say?
So what sort of negative scenarios do you imagine coming from this?
Well, with all of the dropouts, with Kasich whacking out, with JEB-the-useless thrashing around, ineligible anchor babies Rubio and Jindal (out) and the left-overs at the kiddies table, whaddya got left?
Since we already have the experience of an ineligible AND unqualified leftist under our belts, why the hell would you want to drive a stake through the heart of the original intent of the founders by putting up an ineligible candidate from our side. It makes us just as bad as the RATs.
It would forever nullify the elevated set of qualifications, required only for the highest elected position of power in the land.
You’re very welcome, and I’m sorry to hear about the loss of John Armour. It sounds like he brought a lot here that continues to be missed.
>>>Since we already have the experience of an ineligible AND unqualified leftist under our belts, <<<
The Constitution doesn’t speak to being “unqualified,” other than the need to be an NBC, reside in the country at least 14 years, and be at least 35 years old. The rest is left to the public to judge.
On the “ineligible” part, Obama’s situation isn’t Cruz’s.
There was no talk about Obama not being eligible merely because one parent was American and if was actually born in Kenya, was born on foreign soil. Those points were part of the issue, but not the issue itself.
The issue was not if Obama was possibly not an NBC, but if he was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii, in the particular year he was born, then under the laws in effect THEN, he would not be even an American citizen.
In the case of him not even being an American citizen to begin with, the NBC question would be moot. You can’t be NBC without even being a citizen.
And that doubt was furthered by different discoveries that suggested he might not have had American citizenship throughout his childhood and young adulthood.
In such a case, he might have “belatedly,” in later adulthood, been recognized as an American citizen, just for the purpose of him being eligible to be President.
If some plot like that put him into office, that’s treason.
But that’s not what we’re talking about in Cruz’s case.
He was a citizen from birth, and that was registered with the American consulate.
>>>”why the hell would you want to drive a stake through the heart of the original intent of the founders by putting up an ineligible candidate from our side.”<<<
What is your own personal definition of original intent, I ask first.
Then I also have to ask, how do you even know you are getting the original intent of something written in the Constitution? The conditions that the Constitution writers lived with, in the 1780’s have long since passed away.
I can see from being in my mid-forties now, that the conditions of past generations, like the World War I, Depression, World War II generations, no longer exist.
It’s also been over twenty-five years now since the Cold War with the Soviet Union ended, and with the end of it, a lot of the lessons learned from it have been forgotten too.
So what I’m saying is, have you considered how the over-riding concern of NBC was the matter of a candidate’s allegiances, but how the conditions that produce that concern have changed since then? It often means nothing, for one thing, that Muslims are born here, perhaps even to American citizen parents.
>>>” ineligible anchor babies Rubio and Jindal (out)” >>> “It would forever nullify the elevated set of qualifications, required only for the highest elected position of power in the land.”
Cruz, Rubio and Jindal were already allowed to run. They’ve been in the race, and even if they drop out, does it make sense to allow them to run and then say they’re not eligible. They don’t just do this on the spur of the moment. Even if conditions already haven’t changed to make these types of candidacies allowable under the Constitution, so that they may be stopped, why hasn’t every effort been made to nip them in the bud?
And two other questions:
What mechanism do you imagine to be there to remedy the problem?
If one remedy is for Cruz to seek Congress’s approval, or a legal decision, will you accept if he’s allowed to run?
And I haven’t seen among those who say Cruz isn’t eligible any uniform agreement on what NBC is. One says this about the candidate’s parents, and others say that. It’s a point Cruz made in the debate about Trump not being eligible either, according to some.
I don't have a "personal definition". I defer to the "conventional wisdom" of the day as described by one Morrison Waite.
...how do you even know you are getting the original intent of something written in the Constitution?
By looking back into history.
The conditions that the Constitution writers lived with, in the 1780's have long since passed away.
Maybe so, but they were still pretty fresh when this was written.
>>The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Excerpt Minor v Happersett (1874)
That's what everyone believed a hundred years into US History, and what they believed when it was taught to me as a school kid in the 60s.
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.