Thread: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

I'm not going to read through this entire thread.
It comes down to this. Was he born to two US citizen parents in a country that does not recognize birthright citizenship within their borders, OR that his parents were in that country performing a service in the name of the US government?
If any of these factors are missing then by the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment, he wouldn't be considered a US citizen, much less a natural born one.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Panama Canal Zone.

Which was U.S. territory at that time.

As previously provided.

Originally Posted by Excon

He was not born a Citizen let alone a natural born Citizen.
A law (8 U.S.C. § 1403) was later passed granting those born there Citizenship. You know why?
Because they weren't born Citizens.

Originally Posted by Excon

Are you really not reading this thread?
As already pointed out, she got it wrong.

Again, I told which posts to read to find my position. Avail yourself of the information.


No it is not a stupid reason.
Why should it be? That is what the Constitution says.
If you do not like that, get it amended, until such time comes, it stands.

Natural born citizen was never clearly defined in the Constitution though. There is definite question on what that would be in this day and age, when there are no longer real social consequences for having a child out of wedlock nor is it at all rare for people to be stationed overseas for the military or just simply have their child overseas just due to an issue out of their control. Those things really weren't likely in the past, especially when it came to woman, who wasn't likely to be traveling between the countries often, if at all.

Since the left does not follow our constitution the right should so if Teddy was not born here he cannot run.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Natural born citizen was never clearly defined in the Constitution though. There is definite question on what that would be in this day and age, when there are no longer real social consequences for having a child out of wedlock nor is it at all rare for people to be stationed overseas for the military or just simply have their child overseas just due to an issue out of their control. Those things really weren't likely in the past, especially when it came to woman, who wasn't likely to be traveling between the countries often, if at all.

Your argument matters not to what the requirement is.
It didn't need to be defined. The founders knew what it meant.
And while the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue they know where to ascertain the meaning of natural born Citizen, which is in the language which our founders were familiar with. ie: The information previously provided regarding Vattel's The Laws of Nations, and with John Jay's letter to Washington.

Originally Posted by Excon

Your argument matters not to what the requirement is.
And while the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue they know where to ascertain the meaning of natural born Citizen, which is in the language which our founders were familiar with. ie: The information previously provided regarding Vattel's The Laws of Nations, and with John Jay's letter to Washington.

I highly doubt the SCOTUS would see it that way if it became an issue. Especially if the person was a son or daughter of a military service member born overseas. It simply would not be fair. The simple fact is that part of the Constitution was meant to limit the ability of an adult to come over as a citizen of another country and become our President after only being a citizen for a few years or having been raised as a citizen of another country.

Originally Posted by shrubnose

If you'll take a second look at my comment you'll see that I didn't call Cruz anything.

I just said that his mouth will keep him out of the White House because I believe that's what's going to happen.

Lets wait and see what happens in 2016.

Just talking democrats and republicans in general. Tea Party has been called more names than anyone, but they tend to be the ones that express themselves the best. You could say that his mouth will keep him out, but it just might get him in, or at least in the race. Worked for Reagan. And we are talking landslides for Reagan.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

I highly doubt the SCOTUS would see it that way if it became an issue. Especially if the person was a son or daughter of a military service member born overseas. It simply would not be fair.

Fair doesn't matter to the the letter of the Constitution.
(sarcasm) For ****'s sake. Why not just let anyone who was born anywhere become the President. It is unfair to them if we do not. (end sarcasm)
A fairness argument is absurd as it is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

The simple fact is that part of the Constitution was meant to limit the ability of an adult to come over as a citizen of another country and become our President after only being a citizen for a few years or having been raised as a citizen of another country.

It was meant to keep those who were not born of citizen parents, not on US soil, and those with a foreign allegiance from becoming the President.

Originally Posted by Excon

Fair doesn't matter to the the letter of the Constitution.
(sarcasm) For ****'s sake. Why not just let anyone who was born anywhere become the President. It is unfair to them if we do not. (end sarcasm)
A fairness argument is absurd as it is ridiculous.

It simply isn't right to consider that reasoning behind the rule applies to babies born outside of the country but still considered citizens at birth.