Posted on 01/11/2016 8:53:37 AM PST by VinL
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
We jees Cat would you like it more if Cruz could draw like crowds?
The only way this is an issue is if a perception can be created that it is an issue. Because legally it is not.
Tell that to Justice Scalia.
Jus Soli
Trump has flip flopped on this.
Using trumpsters logic Cruz needs to be deported cause he’s not a nbc and never went thru the citizenship process.
Should Cruz have his law license revoked too since he’s not a citizen according to trumpsters
Full stop.
That's happened. The question now is how many people will be persauded that the case law is correct, and NBC requires being born in the US.
So far the issue is unresolved, and both sides are claiming certainty from a legal sense. Not many people have studied the argument from both sides with an open mind, and not many ever will.
When you have the facts on your side argue the facts, if you don't have the facts on your side argue the law. Never allow common sense to enter the debate since it is hard to defeat.
“We jees?”
No. Crowds of Democrats and sight-seers in urban areas aren’t important to me.
Getting out to talk with the people—actually talk, and not just shake a hand or say hello-— who are going to vote, in all the little corners where no one else thinks it’s worth their time?
Yeah. I want that covered.
Pardon me for asking, but which relevant case are you referring to? I haven't read through the entire thread...
The law has been changes but not the Constitution which is the whole point.
Wow you personally just amended the Constitution how cool is that?
You assume things that are not true but heck what does that matter?
Pat Buchanan come to mind.
I find that off-putting too. It feels like gloating, and is bad juju all around. It buys no converts, pushes "the opposition" deeper in their trenches, and all in all creates unnecessary hostility. Both sides guilty, for sure.
-- which relevant case are you referring to? --
First, they aren't "directly on point cases" because there has never been a presidential eligibility case. Technically, until there is a presidential eligibility case, the issue will always be "undecided." But at the same time, the cases contain discussion that majority and dissent all agree on, that absolutely, if applied, decides the Cruz case. I'll just lift a few paragraphs from one case, there are many others.
The application of these respective statutes to a person in plaintiff Bellei's position [similar to Cruz, citizen mother, alien father, born abroad, statutory conditions for attaching citizenship met] produces the following results:Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)1. Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit. One may observe, too, that, if Mr. Bellei had been born in 1933, instead of in 1939, he would have no claim even today. Montana v. Kennedy, supra. ...
Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." ...[From the dissent, again, this is nothing more than an observation of law, not a controlling factor in the Bellei case]
Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
My personal view is that Cruz is not an NBC, but that question can't and won't be decided by a court, so is roughly an academic curiosity.
Courts will decline to take the case, because the constitution says it is up to Congress to determine questions of qualification of the president. See 20th Amendment.
Cruz can bluff his way through. The presumption of "qualified" has been certified by the GOP to all the states. Most people think "deemed qualified" is the same as "is qualified," and the nitty gritty details of precedent won't be known to but a few people who bother to look it up. The public will be swamped with articles by experts, learned professors, etc. that will add heft to the false conclusion (although making people think it is true).
If Cruz wins the nomination and the election, Congress will seat him, and no court will touch a sitting president. It is literally up to the people, acting directly, to enforce this part of the constitution.
No, that’s what everyone else on this thread are doing. I’m just predicting what the courts are going to do, and why they will explain that they are doing so. I’ll be happy to eat my words if I turn out to be wrong.
No, I could care less in some respects that this is happening to Cruz. I understand why you would misread me on this. I haven’t been clear. I wouldn’t be any less disturbed if Trump was launching an “irrational fear campaign” on Lindsey Graham. It’s a bad thing to do to anybody, and it makes it harder for me than it already is to support Trump. It confirms my impression of him as insecure and morally rudderless, because he is willing to use ends-justify-the-means rationalizations, like he did in Kelo. I don’t want a conservative version of Obama in the WH. I really don’t. I want someone who has moral limits, who recognizes when he’s doing something wrong, even if that wrong deed might help him get elected.
By analogy, let’s say you wanted a promotion at work. Your nearest competitor has been getting rave reviews on their work lately, so you start to spread rumors that that they are going to start having legal troubles that will keep them from performing their job. The only problem is, you happen to know their “legal troubles” are not going to impact them seriously at all. Would you still spread those rumors? Anything to win? Really? Is that the guy you want in the WH?
But yes, I agree, Cruz can take it, and you and I can take it, and hopefully remain civil in the process. As a Christian, that is something I aspire to. But as a Christian, I also reject as evil the setting aside of ethical behavior, even when done in quest of some supposedly worthy goal. The ends do NOT justify the means. God justifies both the ends and the means.
So that’s what I’m really getting at. Sorry if you misunderstood. I think Ted will come out of this just fine, in part because this event does such a great job of exposing Trump for who he really is. And of course I will defend Cruz vocally. Why would you expect me or anybody to sit silent whilst he is maligned? Trumpsters don’t sit quietly on their thumbs. We don’t either. I don’t get why that surprises people. It’s politics in America. We argue to the bitter end for our guy, and then we unite against the real enemy. So?
Peace,
SR
Frankly I don't know if I have the attention span, and better minds than mine can't decide either so I don't feel too bad.
Its a shame we'd wrap ourselves around the axle on this deal when the POS in the white house was just given an eight year free ride to rape and pillage. Just another reasons to be as p*sssed off as I am.
Confess we say, or the beatings continue.
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.