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 ...
The ball is in your court. I merely offered up alternatives to going through a 12 step process, and told you in advance what the conclusion would be, and what legal authority produces the conclusions.
You haven't finished your story about Joseph and Mary, the Four Stooges and Fred Astaire.
I don't know how Joseph and Mary got their US Citizenship, so can't speak with any more detail to that. As for the kids, the ones born abroad are naturalized citizens whose citizenship depends on an act of Congress, and the ones born a citizen of one of the several states are US Citizens under the constitution, without resort to an act of Congress. That is enough information to resolve the Cruz situation, he is a naturalized citizen of the US whose citizenship depends on an Act of Congress.
With Cruz, we don't complete the NBC analysis, and we don't have to answer how the analysis would resolve in a case of a persons who was born abroad to US citizens, who were abroad only because they were ordered abroad by the US.
With Cruz we can further observe that his parents were at least legal permanent residents of Canada, and that Canada, like the US, grants birthright citizenship to persons born in Canada, of parents who are legal permanent residents. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of Canada. He was simultaneously born a naturalized citizen of the US, by operation of an Act of Congress. Cuba may have a claim on him through operation of its statutory law. For talking purposes, if Cuba had a law like the one that conferred US citizenship to Ted (born abroad of one citizen parent), then Cuba's claim has the same nature as the US claim, with any differences being resolved by resort to residence and domicile.
The NBC question plays with kids born a citizen of one of the several states. Those children are US Citizens under the constitution, without resort to a statute. That alone does not resolve the question of them being NBC. Under your hypothetical, they are NBC, because Joseph and Mary are US citizens.
Now, I believe that answers all of the questions you have submitted, so far.
With regard to the legal authority for the proposition that those born abroad are naturalized, I offer the case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (a case that could not even exist if Bellei was NBC) as well as the Acts of Congress that automatically confer citizenship at birth to persons born abroad, 8 USC 1401 et seq. All linked up for you. Here is a brief summary of the Rogers v. Bellei case.
The squirrel I saw was you. How long do you expect me to hang around? It was getting past my glass of warm milk and bedtime.
Who then decides?
The voters?
Congress?
Yes I agree!
How requiring someone with proven skills running a government which all the people agree is well run? Kim Jung Un would do here.
How about requiring only those with enough money to finance their own campaign without resorting to tax payer monies? Any of the Saudi royalty would do in this case.
Very rational and reasonable choices - either of those would jump to become POTUS ...
Let’s work on the rest of that irrational, irresponsible, and unreasonable document put together by long dead white slave owners:
Article 1
Section 1
Abortion
Any woman desiring an abortion for any reason shall be permitted said procedure in all circumstances.
Section 2
Marriage
Any two persons or groups of persons desiring to marry shall be permitted said procedure in all circumstances. This section shall not be construed as to limiting partners solely to the species human.
Article 3
Section 1
Firearms
No person at any time shall be permitted the ownership, use, or training with firearms of any description or appearance. Exceptions shall be granted to those individuals serving as community police, to members of the military, to individuals in approved private security firms, and to government approved civilian national security corps or forces.
Article 4
Section 1
Euthanasia
Any person or group desiring to end life shall be permitted at approved facilities. Waivers may be granted to individuals or groups wishing to stop under private conditions only under circumstances when health does not allow transfer to an official euthanasia facility.
Article 5
Section 1
Judicial Guidelines
Judges upon accepting a case are required to form an emotional attachment to the case at hand. Sentences imposed on those found guilty of the charged offense shall be sentenced in accordance with the judge’s feelings of grief, remorse and or whatever seems fair to the judge at the moment of sentencing. No prior legal finding shall contravene the outcome of the sentencing.
Article 7
Section 1
Political Parties
The party of the Wise Men is the only officially recognized political party. Other groups calling themselves political parties are permitted, but no member of said party may hold any political office.
Article 9
Section 1
Religion
There shall be no officially recognized religion or creed. Religious displays are deemed offensive and lead to disputes, disturbing the civil peace. Religious activities and prayer houses are permitted as long as they are peaceful and not disruptive. Religions of peace are welcome and needful. Religions of hate and dissension are deemed wrong and are proscribed herewith. Citizens are urged to submit to the religions of peace.
Clause 1
Hate speech shall be deemed wrong and punishable. Religions promulgating hate-filled speech toward any group or groups, individuals or individual practices are proscribed and punishable.
Clause 2
It is permissible for religions of peace to set up, maintain, and administer separate community judicial counsels. These local courts may administer laws in accordance to the tenants of the religion to its members, as well as those who not being members bring criticism, derision, or other offensive actions and speech directed toward the religious community and or its members.
Article 10
Section 1
Unionization
All corporations and businesses - whether privately or publicly held - shall have each component unionized. Privileges, dues, and other fees shall be set by each union and charged to its members.
Article 20
Section 1
Recognized Treaties
No Article in this document shall be construed as superseding any Recognized Treaty. Parties to Recognized Treaties may set their own laws rules and regulations, including the right to tax individual members as well as others not under their immediate jurisdiction but on recognized Treaty lands.
Clause 1
All Articles granted in this document are granted as Rights to Recognized Treaty Tribes. No article herein shall be at any time granted as a Right to citizens who are not members of a Recognized Treaty Tribes, but as privileges which can at any time for any reason be revoked.
I kind’a like Kim, but am leaning to a Saudi or at least a wealthy Indonesian or other rich Asian of the religion of peace.
Of course Vattel’s is all over the Constit.
Remember Oceander joined late ... Nov 25, 2009.
The older FReepers fighting all the Obo NBC since 2007 pretty much know all of this. Oceander is obfuscating the issue.
Remembre Molly , catching flak is a good thing here... your over the target.
We need to define it strictly as someone born in the bounds of the US to citizens and then apply it to every elected office, and the states need to adopt it as well.
“he is actually a very nice guy”
So, he just becomes a snarky keyboard commando when he can hide behind his computer?
Decides what?
Who should decide if Cruz is an NBC?
You?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
Who?
If you have a problem you are welcome to take it up with me directly.
First, both of you quit saying “I’m so sorry”. Neither of you have a reason to be.
Second, remember the hallmark quote used here on FR so often.
“If you’re taking flak, it’s because you are over the target.”
If a case is brought, the Judiciary.
Before placing a name on a ballot the states should require more than the candidate or party’s assertion of eligibility. Some times persons are removed from the ballot, sometimes not.
OK.
I understand you are a help in fundraising for FR.
The rules on FR are... No profanity, no personal attacks.
You violating those rules repeatedly has caused some donors to quit sending money to FR. If these posters you personally attack are such a problem on FR, then Jim should just BAN THEM. That would go further in encouraging those who are here to donate.
Even you should have the wisdom (and courtesy) to see that following those rules (set the example) would HELP FR get better funded.
How can you claim to be a 'conservative' if you use profanity and personal attacks on others to 'win' during a debate ? How can you criticize TRUMP or CRUZ for using profanity and personal attacks, if you do the same thing ?
*****If a case is brought, the Judiciary.*****
And if the Judiciary finds that Ted Cruz is an NBC, will that satisfy you.
Will you then stop claiming he isn’t?
After all the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution correctly in all the cases below, hasn’t it?
Gibbons v Ogden
Dred Scott
Griswold v. Connecticut
Lochner v. New York
Korematsu v. United States
Lawrence v. Texas
Plessy v. Ferguson
Roe v. Wade
Casey v. Planned Parenthood
King v Burwell
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Obergefell v. Hodges
You seem to want a contest without referees, mob rule. It is a disgusting proposition.
> if the Judiciary finds that Ted Cruz is an NBC
To do so requires overcoming the statute itself, the entire history of U.S. naturalization statutes, the precedents in Bellei and in Minor, the dicta in Ark, the exemplar case of Churchill, all of which show that he is a citizen by statute, i.e. a naturalized citizen, and not eligible to be President.
> And if the Judiciary finds that Ted Cruz is an NBC, will that satisfy you.
>
> Will you then stop claiming he isn’t?
I’m not making the claim, the Supreme Court already has. I am reporting it to you.
Unless, of course, you’re taking flack for having a sockpuppet account like BFAC does.
It’s called BFAM.
Mentioning the alt account results in bfac screaming about haters, posting scripture references, and other things to deflect attention from the fact.
It takes a constitutional amendment in Article II. We don’t amend constitutions with statutes.
LOL!
They ruled that unborn children are not human beings and that Homosexual Marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.
Are you OK with those decisions? Is that the official interpretation of the Constitution?
I understand you are a help in fundraising for FR.
No, I'm not. There is a FReepathon team and I'm not on it.
Closest I come to that is regular contributions.
You violating those rules repeatedly has caused some donors to quit sending money to FR.
I do skate a bit close to the edge sometimes, it's true, and I probably ought to do less of it.
Anyone who uses that as an excuse not to donate either wasn't going to do so in the first place or is pretty darn sensitive and weak.
If these posters you personally attack are such a problem on FR, then Jim should just BAN THEM.
I've never called for anyone to be banned. Most of the folks I get crossways with aren't a "problem" on FR per se.. they just get return fire.
Others might be folks I just flat out don't like.. attitudinally, positionally.. it varies. Except for blogpimps. They all need to die in a fire.
How can you claim to be a 'conservative' if you use profanity and personal attacks on others to 'win' during a debate ?
I'm not aware of having debated anything with anyone lately.
How can you criticize TRUMP or CRUZ for using profanity and personal attacks, if you do the same thing ?
I haven't criticized either of them for anything.
You seem to be incapable of staying on topic and repeatedly go off and make generalized complaints. While I might agree with some of those complaints they add nothing to the topic being discussed and they certainly don’t make a legal or even a political/philosophical point one way or the other, they are just generalized complaints. I have no interest in becoming entangled in your emotional rants.
Have a good day.
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.