Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[txrangerette]

Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.

"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.

[SoConPubbie]

There very much *IS* a definition defining "natural born citizen" as requiring two citizen parents, and this definition has been the default norm for the last 3500 years. This latest "British Law" based nonsense only goes back to about 1600 and includes all sorts of modifications, redefinitions and inconsistencies. Even the British didn't use it regarding the eligibility requirements of their chief executive.

And there are other definitions from the same time-period that do not agree with that definition.

And all of this is problematic since none of those definitions was included in the US Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

“The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had ELSEWHERE. To determine that.”—SCOTUS, 1875. Minor v. Happersett

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I absolutely agree, and I hope to God you take the meaning to heart.

The 14th amendment DOES NOT SAY who shall be natural born citizens. It Pretty much blows that "All you have to be is born in the United States" theory clean out the window.

[SoConPubbie]

Are you going for actual facts, or made up pretend facts like Roe v Wade?

Sorry, but those are the facts.

As of right now, Roe vs. Wade, is considered Constitutional.

Does that make it right?

NO!

Does it make it moral?

NO!

Does it mean it will always be considered Constitutional?

No, because the Constitution describes the process necessary to change the consitutionality of any law.

At one point in time, Dred Scott was consitutional, until it was made unconsitutional through the Constitutionally defined process.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, it’s obvious....if you ask ME.

The rest of us aren't wearing rose colored glasses.

Back when you were arguing on behalf of Rubio, you went to great lengths to emphasize how his parents were American Citizens, and therefore he was a "natural born citizen."

You told me his mother naturalized before he was born, and you told me his father was in the process when he was born.

I argued that the founders and early administrators of the law regarded this as acceptable, and so I had no disagreement with it.

I was with you on Rubio, but now you are arguing for completely different standards. I'm still arguing for the exact same standards as before.

[DiogenesLamp]

Arms

Webster’s 1913 Dictionary...

Obviously you misunderstood the challenge. The point was to find the definition of "Arms" in the US Constitution.

SoConPubbie has been repeatedly making the point that "natural born citizen" isn't defined in there somewhere, and my counterpoint is that "neither is the word "Arms."

Sure, both are defined elsewhere, and i've even got a copy of a Legal dictionary defining "natural born citizen" as having two parents, but that isn't the point.

The point was to get SoConPubbie to realize that his point about there being no definition in the constitution was silly, because the constitution isn't a dictionary. Only one word is defined in that document, and that word is "Treason." The term "corruption of blood" appears in that section, but lo and behold, there is no definition for it in there either!

This is what James Madison had to say about the idea of spelling out everything contained in the Constitution.

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm more interested, right now, with the current state of affairs and what can be accomplished.

Well then you and I are talking past each other. I'm not interested in made up stuff, I'm interested in the truth.

If legal fiction is your bag, then I heartily recommend you take a big swallow from the Legal system which brought you Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Kelo v New London, and good ole Obamacare!

BTW, this thread alone should show that what you think is an absolute, is going to be impossible to get enough people to understand and agree with your definition of "Natural Born".

Might be easier than you think. All that seems to be necessary is to get some legal figurehead to say so, and a lot of people will fall all over themselves realigning their position to correspond to the legal figurehead. Bunch of bloody wind vanes, they are.

There simply is not enough evidence, nor enough interest in the general populace at large, for you to be successful.

There is plenty enough evidence for rational men, and there never will be enough evidence for foolish ones.

[MamaTexan]

Anything that is natural law cannot be argued, such as gravity.

There is a 'natural law' of physics and a natural law of logic and reason.

Concepts such as - you neither spend your way to prosperity nor regulate your way to freedom - would be an expression of such logic.

Another thing that cannot be argued is that our children belong to THEIR PARENTS, not the government, so why would the government get to decide that a parent could NOT pass their citizenship on to their child?

[SoConPubbie]

The point was to get SoConPubbie to realize that his point about there being no definition in the constitution was silly, because the constitution isn't a dictionary. Only one word is defined in that document, and that word is "Treason." The term "corruption of blood" appears in that section, but lo and behold, there is no definition for it in there either!

And as it has already been pointed out to you, on this thread alone, by xzins and others, there are and were multiple definitions concerning what "Natural Born" means both before, during, and after the lifetimes of the founders.

So which one do you think the Supreme Court of today will take and apply?

You've fixated on one definition and have been trying to make the case that it is the only definition. It is not.

There was no unanimous agreement about the definition among the founders either, if I am wrong, please prove it. If there were, they would have included it in the Constitution, much as you have already pointed out, the definition of Treason was included.

Furthermore, you're fixated on the idea that only your definition will and should be applied in the process to get "Natural Born" definied constitutionally.

The likelyhood of this occuring is slim to none given the current political environment.

You'd like the process to take into consideration ONLY original intent, which will never be the case, and cannot be the case given that for most issues, the realities of the issue can change over time. Am I saying that the constitution is a living document, no. There are issues that should never change (life being one of them), but I doubt you are going to find a plurality, much less a majority that will agree with your position that "Natural Born" has to mean 2 citizen parents at birth on any Court, much less Congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

If we believe that the 10th Amendment leaves all extra-constituional matters to the States or the People, then don’t our elected representatives have the power to define terms that are not explicitly defined within the Constitution?

Sounds like a variation on the Lincoln Douglas debate. I'll take Mr. Lincoln's position if you don't mind. :)

The founders were about natural law and natural rights. The point being, that no government had a right to infringe upon those. Among those rights were "Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion, the right to self defense, the right to be free in ones person and effects...

What that means is there are those rights which are natural, and which are regarded as beyond the ability of the "state" to tamper with.

Natural born citizenship fits neatly into this category. If a person is born inside a nation's boundaries to two citizens of that nation, who can claim he is not a citizen?

[DiogenesLamp]

So you can't.

Nor more than you.

[SoConPubbie]

If legal fiction is your bag, then I heartily recommend you take a big swallow from the Legal system which brought you Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Kelo v New London, and good ole Obamacare!

No, reality is my bag.

There is a process defined whereby laws are considered constitutional, that is already defined in the Constitution.

There is a process defined whereby laws are considered unconstitutional, that is already defined in the constitution.

There is plenty enough evidence for rational men, and there never will be enough evidence for foolish ones.

Like I said, there is not enough evidence to prove your definition is the correct one, nor is or will there be enough interest in this matter in the general populace in order to push this issue through the Constitutionally defined process for Amendment.

The Supreme Court may rule on it and provide guidance through a ruling, but it is anyone's guess, given the current makeup of the court what that ruling might be.

[SoConPubbie]

Natural born citizenship fits neatly into this category. If a person is born inside a nation's boundaries to two citizens of that nation, who can claim he is not a citizen?

So, who's to say that a person born to one citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen?

[MHGinTN]

With the pirate Roberts —a man lacking in character, sold out to whomever holds his FBI file— sitting atop the subpreme Court, you can be sure ANY ruling will be as his bosses tell him to rule, and that will ALWAYS be contrary to what the Founders intended. The subPreme Court is now merely a turd floating in the feted punchbowl.

[BurningOak]

I do not understand what you are talking about. Children go through naturalization like everybody else. They have separate paperwork that their parents fill out for them. Obviously they do not swear oaths or do tests, but they get their own citizenship documents that are legally separate entities from their parents. A parent can have a green card or citizenship while the child does not and vice versa.

http://www.immigrationdirect.com/greencard/Green-Card-for-Child.jsp?gclid=CKa48vTqwboCFQVBQgodPQQAeQ

[DiogenesLamp]

So tell me, do you believe, given US Law right now, that Senator Cruz is eligible to be President of the United States?

Tough question. Many people knowledgeable in what currently passes for US law have already said he can. Their claims very heavily contradict the findings in Roger v Bellei, but if no one challenges him on it, it won't matter.

I have no doubt that absent a challenge, Ted Cruz can be elected President. If he is challenged, It might very well be a nail biter as to whether or not he would be ruled ineligible.

The fact that Aldo Mario Bellei lost his citizenship is very damaging to Ted Cruz's argument. I believe that the court declared in that case that people who are citizens by virtue of a congressional statute ARE naturalized citizens.

As for me, if Ted Cruz runs for President, i'm going to support him 100%. In fact, I find it very annoying that we are once again discussing this, because It would probably be better for all of us if we just shut up about this subject.

Things were pretty quiet until TexasRangerette decided to blow them up again.

[DiogenesLamp]

Check his qualifications on your own. I have no time for argumentative pests like you.

Facts and reasoning just don't come naturally to some people.

[onyx]

I'm telling y'all this is an exercise in futility.

The Marxist has set the " prec·e·dent "!

Nothing will come of any challenges to Senator Cruz's eligibility to serve as POTUS, should such a stupid challenge originate.

[onyx]

Facts and reasoning just don't come naturally to some people.

Pot/Kettle.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can’t possibly argue that they don’t. If that is the case then let’s see you carry a gun in DC.

Are you confusing a raw exercise of power with being equivalent to being constitutionally legal?

Let me ask you, do constitutional rights cease when you enter DC?

[trisham]

Facts and reasoning just don't come naturally to some people.

***************************

Oy vey. Apparently, neither do good manners.