Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 321

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

  1. #211
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Ok **** it, I'm done with you and your nonsense. Either you don't know, or are hiding something.
    No, you just haven't read the thread.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  2. #212
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    05-05-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    632

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
    That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
    That meaning hasn't changed.

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court has never heard the issue so folks like Obama and possibly Cruz can get away with it.
    He was born a US citizen, he didn't immigrate here, apply for citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to become a citizen, he was naturally born a citizen.

  3. #213
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by face, your View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
    That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
    That meaning hasn't changed.

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court has never heard the issue so folks like Obama and possibly Cruz can get away with it.
    He was born a US citizen, he didn't immigrate here, apply for citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to become a citizen, he was naturally born a citizen.
    Oh look. Someone quoted post 9 that I directed another person to read. Go figure.
    Cruz was not born here. He was born in Canada. He was a citizen of Canada. That is not a natural born citizen.
    Last edited by Excon; 03-16-15 at 02:56 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  4. #214
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    8,736

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?
    It's about 2/3 the way down in the very first post to the thread. Had you read it you'd have known that.

    No they did not.
    Neither Court made such a ruling.


    The Court in Wong only ruled he was a citizen.
    The court first defined his citizenship status showing that he was "natural(ly)-born" in America and that he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law. They then upheld his citizenship status.

    The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
    It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
    I reaching this conclusion, wouldn't the court first have to determine whether or not Maenza was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and how said citizenship came to be? This is what the court said on that matter:

    There must be more than inference, hypothesis or surmise before a natural-born citizen of the United States can be stripped of his rights and privileges of citizenship and be adjudicated an expatriate.
    Therefore, before the court could rule on whether or not Maenza had given up his citizenship status, they had to first determine what type of "citizen" he was - natural-born or naturalized. The court determined that Maenza was, in fact, a "natural-born citizen" and that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship.

    Where you get the idea that it somehow ruled he was a natural born citizen is beyond me. Maybe you do not understand the difference between dicta and a ruling.


    This is why I didn't want to have this discussion again. Folks like you come in and stick firmly to your definition of what a "natural-born citizen" is and treat such as if it is distinct from being called a "citizen". Truth is, in America being called a "citizen" is synonymous for "natural-born" or "native-born". All this means is "if you are born in the United States you are a 'natural-born' citizen."

    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

    *Anyone born inside the United States *
    *Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
    *Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    *Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    *Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    *Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    *Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    *A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    ** There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
    The only distinction is if you are naturalized U.S. citizen, i.e., someone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth but applied for U.S. citizenship. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger if you will. It's why he and people like him who applied for U.S. citizenship can never be President. Everyone else who was born here and are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. laws are natural-born U.S. citizens. Ultimately, there was nothing that either Wong Kim Art or Appellee Rosario Maenza had do anything in order to be declared "natural-born U.S. citizens" except be born here.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-16-15 at 04:23 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I know, it's not like she meant he was born there.

    I've said (prior to that) many times that Ireland is my homeland and I've never been there.
    So if someone casually called you an irishman you probably wouldn't take it as a negative.

  6. #216
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    46,077

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

    edit: oh hey there 22 pages.

  7. #217
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    edit: oh hey there 22 pages.
    Good thing I previewed before posting.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  8. #218
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    In any case, I go back to a few old questions I once asked when this natural-born -vs- citizen issue first came up w/Pres. Obama:

    If there is a difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen, what benefits are conferred one over the other?

    Is the only difference that being a natural-born citizen can hold the office of PUTUS and a citizen cannot?

    And seeing that the term "natural-born" was only once a settled matter in a 1790 law that has long been repealed and replaced by other versions of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization law, does "natural-born" even still apply today?

    And if not, should Art. 2 of the U.S. Constitution be amended?
    Your questions?
    Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?
    (BTW, I don't recall ever getting a straight answer to my question(s).)

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?
    It's about 2/3 the way down in the very first post to the thread. Had you read it you'd have known that.
    No.
    I read your postings.
    An answer to my questions would have been that you had asked everybody in your opening post.
    And then that I would find the answers to it provided in the information the other posters provided.

    So thank you for providing the link.
    It enabled me to do some further searching and it appears that you just didn't participate in that one thread, but each and every time you did participate your arguments were thoroughly dismantled.
    And now you are attempting to make some of the same failed arguments that failed then. That makes no sense.

    What is clear from that thread, this one and as well as the others I found, is that you do not understand the information you yourself present and do not learn when you are corrected.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Where you get the idea that it somehow ruled he was a natural born citizen is beyond me. Maybe you do not understand the difference between dicta and a ruling.

    This is why I didn't want to have this discussion again. Folks like you come in and stick firmly to your definition of what a "natural-born citizen" is and treat such as if it is distinct from being called a "citizen".
    *sigh*
    Apparently you suffer from what you accuse others of, as noticed by celticlord in that thread you provided.

    I do not think that is a bad thing, as person should be confident in their arguments or they shouldn't be making them, except in your case as your arguments are clearly wrong.
    Last edited by Excon; 03-16-15 at 09:12 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  9. #219
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    The court first defined his citizenship status showing that he was "natural(ly)-born" in America and that he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law. They then upheld his citizenship status.
    Nowhere in that case did they determine Wong to be a natural born citizen. Nowhere did they define him as a natural born citizen.

    They only ruled that he was a citizen. Period.

    You clearly do not understand what you present.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
    It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
    I reaching this conclusion, wouldn't the court first have to determine whether or not Maenza was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and how said citizenship came to be?
    Oh dear G_d, no!
    Did you not read the syllabus?; The background information surrounding the case?

    Appellee Rosario Maenza was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on July 29, 1912, the son of alien Italian parents. Under familiar principles of international law and of the municipal law of the United States and of Italy, he possessed dual nationality from time of his birth; he was a citizen of the United States by virtue of nativity in this country, Amendment XIV, § 1, and a subject of the King of Italy because of his Italian parentage.

    That is what they recognized.
    He was a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment § 1. Which is not by virtue of Article II, § 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

    The case was only about whether he lost that acknowledged citizenship.

    As I said; You do not understand what you are presenting.
    Which just continues in the following.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    This is what the court said on that matter:
    There must be more than inference, hypothesis or surmise before a natural-born citizen of the United States can be stripped of his rights and privileges of citizenship and be adjudicated an expatriate.
    That is mere dicta. It is not a ruling. It is not a holding. It is not authoritative.


    Like I said; You do not understand what you are presenting.
    You may find it persuasive and appealing, but that isn't how the law works.
    It means nothing as they already recognized he was a citizen under the 14th.
    And the 14th does not and can not mean the same as Article II, § 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
    They are separate and distinct.
    To argue that NBC meant the same as the 14th would render the NBC clause without effect and that simply would not be an argument allowed before the Court.


    Just above "Page 5 U. S. 175"
    5 U.S. 137
    Marbury v. Madison


    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. ”
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../137/case.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Therefore, before the court could rule on whether or not Maenza had given up his citizenship status, they had to first determine what type of "citizen" he was - natural-born or naturalized. The court determined that Maenza was, in fact, a "natural-born citizen" and that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship.
    Therefore nothing. The court made no such determination. The court acknowledged that he was a citizen under the 14th. And ruled he did not lose that citizenship. That is all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    The only distinction is if you are naturalized U.S. citizen, i.e., someone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth but applied for U.S. citizenship. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger if you will. It's why he and people like him who applied for U.S. citizenship can never be President. Everyone else who was born here and are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. laws are natural-born U.S. citizens. Ultimately, there was nothing that either Wong Kim Art or Appellee Rosario Maenza had do anything in order to be declared "natural-born U.S. citizens" except be born here.
    Wrong all the way around. Neither was declared a natural born citizen.

    The 14th determines who is "just" a citizen.
    The 14th can not render the NBC clause without effect.
    A natural born citizen and that of the 14th are not the same.
    Stop making the same failed arguments and learn from your mistakes.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  10. #220
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Truth is, in America being called a "citizen" is synonymous for "natural-born" or "native-born". All this means is "if you are born in the United States you are a 'natural-born' citizen."
    That isn't the truth.
    The truth is that 14th and NBC can not mean the same thing.
    Period.

    As already provided.
    The Court in Minor v. Happersett has recognized one category of Citizens of which there can be no doubt of their natural born citizen status.
    "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
    They then go on to say;
    "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
    They didn't address because it was improper to do so as it was not a question before the Court.
    Nor did they have to with the 14th in effect.
    The 14th makes those in that group of just born on the soil without regard to their parents citizenship status, citizens.
    Again, keep in mind that Marbury v. Madison does not allow for the 14th to render the NBC clause without effect. So the 14th has to be different from the NBC clause.



    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

    *Anyone born inside the United States *
    *Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
    *Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    *Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    *Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    *Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    *Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    *A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    ** There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
    And? This is irrelevant and was already trounced in the other thread you participated in.
    The 14th doesn't apply to the argument and Statutes can not apply.
    As that was pointed out then, what about it did you not understand?

    No legislative Law is relevant to this discussion. The Constitution is not beholden to such.

    Again. The 14th Amendment is what determines what "just" a citizen is by the Constitution from the date it went into effect.
    All other "just" citizens are determined by law.
    Neither are natural born citizens as legislation can not determine what a natural born citizen is and the 14th doesn't even address it.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •