That means that any definition of “natural born” is in the realm of discussion, doesn’t it, since the Constitution does not define it.
We do know that Congress has the power to make laws on the subject, though, so when they define who DOES need to be naturalized, they are defining who DOES NOT need it.
Those persons not needing naturalization are, apparently, already natural. They have been BORN automatically as citizens.
No, historically that has not been the case at all.
“When Congress defines who does need to be naturalized, they are defining who does not need it”
And that is precisely what Ted Cruz claims about his citizenship. He did not need to be naturalized but was a citizen by birth through the citizenship of his mother.
I am flabbergasted at people who bog down in the weeds and see absolutely nothing wrong with the notion that it’s just fine and dandy to strip the rights of an American who gives birth beyond a border line from the baby she bears.
They actually believe the Founders intended that because a pregnant American crossed a border for a reasonable purpose and gives birth while over that line (not saying when the pregnancy occurred in this case, but their “reasoning” includes the notion that a woman shopping over the border who gives birth while there has her child’s rights stripped away), that her child is either not a citizen at all or is not “natural born” and can never be POTUS.
They are fine with that.
They really believe our genius Founders intended such a thing, and they will argue they intended it until they are blue in the face.
Never having the common sense to stop and ask themselves, whoah! Does that make ANY sense at all?
And that is the more human side of this “debate”.
You are serving as a legal, Constitutional scholar in the debate. I appreciate it xzins, believe me. Thank you.
But the lack of common sense, a sense of proportionality, a crediting of our Founders with having better sense than to visit such a punishment on Ted Cruz (and all the others) whose mothers who gave birth to them happened to be beyond a border when they were born??
Boggles my mind.
You said, “Those persons not needing naturalization are, apparently, already natural. They have been BORN automatically as citizens.”
It’s your use of the word “apparently” that should give us pause. That was accurate and honest language, and I respect and appreciate that very, very much. It’s an acknowledgement that what you’ve said is a logical inference not a clearly-stated legal fact.
It was “apparent” to us all that Obamacare was unconstitutional. The Obamacare ruling showed us that “apparently” isn’t good enough today. We need it written in stone, or these creepy critters will move the goalposts according to political expedience, like they did with Obamacare. And that is why I say we need to take the argument away from ourselves and put it to the courts. Like ALWAYS has to happen when there are legal arguments. Because how you and I infer things doesn’t matter one bit. How the courts have always inferred things before doesn’t matter one bit. Without a clear, unequivocal ruling there’s wiggle room for them to decide anything they want to decide. And that is what we need to protect ourselves from.
Does that make sense? Do you hear what I’m saying? I don’t know whose interpretation and inferences are right - meaning they match what the Founders meant at the time. But I do know that without a direct ruling SCOTUS becomes a bribe-able political weapon when somebody like Cruz threatens DC. We need to remove that weapon from Soros’ arsenal, before it is too late.
Exactly. It took me five long, painful years to come to that conclusion and I freely admit that liking Ted Cruz pushed me there. Libtards will say that makes me racist. Birthers will say that makes me a hypocrite. I say it makes me rational and thoughtful because I considered a logical argument. I’d like to know what SCOTUS says.