Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
I get you, but what documentation is Cruz refusing to release? Genuine question not a gotcha question.
Disagee.
Goldwater was born on a US protectorate.
Agree about Romney Ando mclaim
When did the father become a Can. cit.
When and where did they marry.
Answering these questions would help secure his claim to his Senate seat.
He presents as a person of high integrity yet there is murkiness that he does nothing to dispel.
I submit that you are reading something in, that is not there. In fact, you are reading something for the opposite of what it says.
If this court thought this statute conferred NBC, then this case would flat not exist.
First paragraph of your blockquote: Citizenship to a person born abroad of citizen parent is a subject regulated by Congress under rules of naturalization
Then, I think this is your "In doing so the Court said in Rogers v. Bellei"
Second full paragraph: Citizenship under the constitution is three factors, birth IN the US, naturalization IN the US, and subject to the jurisdiction. [The case hinges on construction of the word "in" emphasized above. Bellei doesn't fit any of those, because he wasn't naturalized IN the US]. Congress can assert it's power to naturalize, to include those not naturalized IN the US, but those citizens will not be 14th amendment citizens.
Third full paragraph: The court recognizes the power of Congress to confer citizenship on person born abroad. But if it wants, it can pass zero laws conferring citizenship to persons born abroad. All people born abroad are aliens. Congress can confer citizenship [implied, pursuant to it's power to naturalize], and it can pass citizenship by blood if it wants to.
I'm open to your paraphrase, that delivers the result you claim is in there. It's only three short paragraphs.
And that would be SCOTUS reading crap into the constitution that isn't there, a task that it seems pretty amenable to doing, and hey, after finding homo marriage, etc. in there, it would be hard to beclown itself much worse than it already has. It's a thoroughly discredited institution already, by its own fault.
Think about what you are arguing — Vattel should be superior to the Constitution. Didn’t you take the opposite view a few days ago? I don’t follow your arguments, that’s an innocent question.
I’m a lawyer, and I have litigated candidate eligibility matters, and running out and quickly getting a declaratory judgment is not how this works. Almost no one has standing to bring a claim, though many might try. SCOTUS will leave this to Congress and the political process. But even if it disregarded the safe haven of the political question doctrine and took up the case, I firmly believe it would decide in favor of Cruz, because the language of the Constitution allows recognizing Cruz as natural born, and there is no legally binding authority that would prevent such a conclusion, despite the bloviating here and elsewhere to the contrary.
Bottom line, this whole exercise is a diversion to get Cruz off his conservative message and derailed in Iowa, because Trump fears losing Iowa. That right there is the whole thing in a nutshell. Pure politics. Sad to see so many on our side confused by it.
Peace,
SR
Eligibility is not a political issue, is a question of law & fact. The facts regarding an individual are discoverable. For example, a persons age and residency are discoverable facts, as is their citizenship status. Questions regarding eligibility are within the exclusive authority of the Judiciary. Conversely, if it were a political issue, the eligibility mandate of Article II would be nugatory.
Until the Naturalization Act of 1934 Cruz would not have even been considered a citizen of the USA. The son of a Cuban, born in Canada to an American mother is not a natural born citizen of the USA. Not if we are going with the original intent of the founders.
Now if we have a living constitution well then sure Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen because well he really really wants to be. He and few other select smart people get to tell us that the rules are and we better accept it.
A living constitution means no constitution.
Did you know that today our national guard is the nations' militia? You know that part about a where the founders said "a well regulated militia" Yup and of course the national guard needs to be armed but very day citizens like you and me? Not so much. And oh did you know that two men have a constitutional right to be married in the church of their choice. And of course the constitution protects the right of a women to murder her baby in the womb. Etc, etc, etc.
Screwing with the meaning of our constitution will not end well for us.
“The Congress shall have Power To ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”
— Article One, Section 8, U.S. Constitution
I also submit that unless the Constitution is inherently impossible of interpretation or understanding based on its own terms, such extraneous references must not be permitted, or may sometimes be permitted with little weight as set against the Constitution's own clear provisions.I submit that all the fevered and tortured bending and twisting, and all the references to this and that while perhaps entertaining are essentially nothing more than a diversion
And then @ 157, you reverse, and decide to invoke extraneous references, for the purpose of reversing the outcome you didn't like when you used the constitution.
And even then, (man, this rope is getting harder to push) you have to overlay equal rights on top of jus sanguinas on top of torturing Vattel, and haven't defined the minimum extent of jus soli that keeps the nation together, and oh my God the system works fine the way we have it now thank you very much. Congress can hand out citizenship like lollipops, at birth, to everybody. That is constitutional. The only power it lacks, is the power to expand the pool of president candidates.
I do, very much, want to continue this discussion. (I have been where you are on the issue and am totally open to all interpretations.) I can’t continue it tonight though. More tomorrow?
In the end, all constitutional questions are political questions, by virtue of the fact that the Constitution belongs to We the People, not to the judges or politicians.
So popular acclaim is all that’s need to be president? Is that what you are advocating?
Nope. Not at all. I’m just saying, that even if some judge rules against the laws of nature and nature’s God and the Constitution, We the People have the right, and the power, to tell them to go straight to hell.
This is one of the saddest things about this whole episode. The very people who should be pushing the country back towards our natural law foundations and back to strict adherence to the supreme law of our land, conservatives, are, because of campaign partisanship, doing the exact opposite.
“FWIW, those manuals have no force of law.”
Of course, but they do have some probative value to ascertain the interpretations in use at a point in time. The quote also demonstrates the acknowledgement that the Constitution and its usage are acknowledged to take precedence over anything found in the Foreign Affairs Manual.
It is sad, no doubt about it. Our situation is appalling.
Are you a judge in a court of law, perchance?
Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state but Arizona was a US territory. US territory soil is US soil. Dido McCain born in the Panama canal zone when the Panama canal zone was US territory. No comment on Romney I do know know his circumstances.
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.