Posted on 01/17/2016 4:37:25 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
In recent weeks, much time and effort has been devoted to debating whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency. Whichever way you come down on this question of constitutional interpretation, the real lesson of this debate should be the absurdity of excluding naturalized citizens from the presidency in the first place. Categorically excluding immigrants from the presidency is a form of arbitrary discrimination based on place of birth (or, in a few cases, parentage), which is ultimately little different from discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Both ethnicity and place of birth are morally arbitrary characteristics which do not, in themselves, determine a person's competence or moral fitness for high political office.
The "natural born" citizen requirement was originally inserted into the Constitution because some of the Founders feared that European royalty or nobles might move to the United States, get elected to the presidency, and then use the office to advance the interests of their houses. Whatever the merits of this concern back in the 1780s, it is hardly a plausible scenario today.
One can argue that immigrants have less knowledge of the country and its customs, and might make worse presidents for that reason. But that problem is surely addressed by the constitutional requirement that a candidate for president must have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. As a practical matter, anyone who attains the political connections and public recognition needed to make a serious run for the presidency is likely to have at least as much knowledge of the US and American politics as most serious native-born candidates do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No divided loyalties? Then the best qualified would be naturalized citizens, who have demonstrated absolute loyalty to the U.S. by voluntarily choosing to go through the arduous process of naturalizing. Certainly their loyalty would be a lot less dubious than the loyalty of native-born whose loyalty has never been tested.
That makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible.
The mafia has more moral authority than our federal government has.
At this point the argumentation has become stupid and divisive, and I offer you as a prime example of everything that is wrong about this debate.
You and those who think like you have successfully elevated jus sanguinis to the point to where a person whose father was Kenyan can be considered a natural born citizen merely due the accident of his birth on American soil (setting aside for the moment the citizenship of his mother).
Vattel, The Law of nations I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Agreed!
I'm going to run against you as a neutralized citizen. I don't give a darn what 'party' you ascribe to. I'm neutral. I will only vote for what is good for the whole country, not one party of the ruling class.
(please send me the dirty details of your life so I can use them to beat you)
There is also the third option. All it takes is 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices to rewrite the Constitution however they want.
Anyone else remember the Equal Rights Amendment? Liberals spent years trying to get it passed. It failed in part based on the argument that it would mandate the recognition of homosexual marriage. So the Supreme Court simply wrote it into the Constitution.
The Supreme Court doesn't even pretend to look through emanations of penumbra anymore. They just decree that the Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices want it to say.
I was thinking Nigel Farange.
So let’s take a closer look at who could run for President according to Cruz excusers.
You better open your eyes on this one
The Father who cannot run but has grandchildren who could run. And not just one:
Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid (Arabic: الأمير رعد بن زيد‎; born 18 February 1936) is the son of Prince Zeid of the Hashemite House and Princess Fahrelnissa Zeid (Fakhr un-nisa), a Turkish noblewoman. Upon the death of his father on October 18, 1970, he inherited the position as head of the Royal Houses of Iraq and Syria. Ra’ad has lived in London and Paris. The Kingdom of Jordan has confirmed his style as His Royal Highness and Prince.[1]
Yes. Right here on FR, and in the media. Where were you ?
We've undermined the Constitution enough. Leave the requirement in place and repeal both the 16th and 17th Amendments. After a decade of those Amendments being gone we can decide which of the other ones may need repealed.
All the talk of another convention is worth nothing or worse than nothing if the people can't even do what it takes to repeal Amendments that have obviously been horribly abused or failed to do what it was promised they would do.
This nation is run by people who figure that if there are no mobs in the streets, there's no real opposition. The question for average folks is :
Are the people in charge wrong and We the People will do the hard work of recovering our Constitution without mobs, will We The People go to the wall and put mobs in the streets if that's what it takes, or will We The Sheep just wonder around and bleat ?
JMHo
Sort of like JFK's secret society speach. They got him for that.
Putting aside our opinions concerning the definition of NBC, I can assure you I agree with the substance of the post I displayed and attribute to you.
We probably disagree as to which candidate tries to "pretend to be conservatives while actually abrogating and subverting the Constitution to the detriment of the Republic".
Very insightful post.
When I was younger, when someone said someone was NEUTRALIZED, they meant he had been killed.
But he needs to stay in until this constitutional matter is settled.
Yep, and we have a poster on this very thread telling us we must change it to something more reasonable and rational, then accused me of being a "progressive"
The crap that gets poste here is mind boggling sometimes
Oh I forgot to add. It’s TRUMPs fault. Lol
You just never know. : )
and all persons born in those [Virgin] islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States at birth.The careful reader will notice that these citizens at birth may have two alien parents.All persons born in the island of Guam on or after April 11, 1899 (whether before or after August 1, 1950) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States
I didn’t know this one. They had one child. Born in Switzerland
Rita Hayworth married this guy...
Prince Ali Salman Aga Khan (13 June 1911 – 12 May 1960), known as Aly Khan, was a son of Sultan Mahommed Shah, Aga Khan III, the leader of the NizÄrÄ« IsmÄ’Ä«lÄ« Muslims, a sect of Shia Islam, and the father of Aga Khan IV.
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.