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 ...
Then why don’t you start?
I see.
You quite clearly do not.
I thought that the election of the Kenyan eliminated the requirement.
In the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act wassimply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
.
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,
a natural born citizen
Rep. Bingham said parents.
He did not say one parent, or a mother or father.
Yes, some of the people naturalized were already alive. But a child born today in the Virgin Islands or Guam is a citizen of the US at birth. IMMEDIATELY UPON THEIR BIRTH.
Your reading comprehension appears to be impaired. If you are not rational or capable of reasoned thought, it would be a waste of my time, and only cause you irritation, if we were to continue our correspondence.
Trump’s loyalty is not questionable. He is all American!
Bush’s loyalty belongs to Mexico and the NWO.
There, do you now understand?
Is there anything, anything at all that Cruz is a natural born citizen?
No mere law can modify, clarify, un-do, or overrule any part of the U.S. Constitution, for it is the bedrock foundation upon which all laws rest.
A law can't make Ted a natural born citizen (born on the soil to two citizen parents), any more than it could overturn the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
Is that an invitation to fight?
.
Trump’s loyalty is non-existent.
He is in love with himself.
Are you on drugs?
It can have several meaning, most common of which is defeat, offset and obliterate.
Well, ALL RIGHT!
You know, I met him in person?
Got his autograph on my cap and talked to him!
He even held my hand in two of his and called me “darling.”
WHOA!
If there was anything that exists that proves Cruz is a natural born citizen we all would have seen it by now. Have you ever heard Cruz say I am a natural born citizen? He sure did not say that in the debate when asked directly about his questionable eligibility.
Harvard school Cruz cannot claim ignorance what that presidential eligibility requirement means.. It is settle law, just now it serve the purpose of some to claim otherwise.
It’s an invitation to a discussion, which you have so far steadfastly refused.
He says so, and the popular legal authorities such as Katyal, Clement, Levin, Balkin, Amar, Somin, etc. say so too. Plus he has a nifty/simple argument. Citizen-at-birth is natural born citizen. It's either that, or I'm naturalized, and I didn't have to go through naturalization to become a citizen.
Isn't that enough? Do you really think they are all liars?
Funny thing is, they are all liars.
You’d better CALM DOWN, Oceander!
My loyalty is to the Constitution as it is written. I don’t care what you question. you are obviously lacking in education.
Yes. The invigorating draft of rational thought.
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.