Page 28 of 33 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 321

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

  1. #271
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Nobody said he wasn't given Canadian citizenship at birth. I could deliver a child in Canada tomorrow and he's automatically granted citizenship. That doesn't prove he has allegiance to Canada.
    He wasn't granted. He was born with it.
    And his allegiance to Canada is a condition of his birth. HE was born with it.

    He was granted US citizenship by law.



    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    So I guess by your last statement you can't show me any Cruz supporters who are worked up about or concerned with the fact he was born in Canada.
    Don't need to. Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.


    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    In other words, the people who are concerned about Cruz's country of birth are either not going to vote for him anyway for any number of reasons, or they truly believe the birther nonsense about him and won't vote for him because of it. Like I said.

    You did not say that. You said "only".
    You made a blanket statement.
    It was false.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  2. #272
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    The people that would vote for Cruz despite the fact that he was born in Canada with Canadian citizenship, are probably that same crowd that had their knickers in a knot about Obama. Selective constitutional adherence.
    As I already pointed out.
    Those who are willing to vote for Cruz but opposed Obama because he owned multiple allegiances, are hypocrites.
    Last edited by Excon; 03-18-15 at 08:08 AM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  3. #273
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    He wasn't granted. He was born with it.
    And his allegiance to Canada is a condition of his birth. HE was born with it.

    He was granted US citizenship by law.



    Don't need to. Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.



    You did not say that. You said "only".
    You made a blanket statement.
    It was false.
    Okay, well, carry on with your Birther theories.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  4. #274
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    The people that would vote for Cruz despite the fact that he was born in Canada with Canadian citizenship, are probably that same crowd that had their knickers in a knot about Obama. Selective constitutional adherence.
    They're called "Birthers". From the Hillary supporters who started it to Donald Trump who continued it to the people who are trying to use it against Cruz. Indicative of what's wrong in this country.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  5. #275
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Okay, well, carry on with your Birther theories.


    The Constitutional requirement that one be a "natural born citizen" is not a theory.
    That the Constitution is not beholden to any law, is not a theory.
    That the Supreme Court already recognized two categories of those who may be natural born citizens is not a theory. That one of those categories is covered by the 14th is not a theory.
    A clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect by another, is not a theory. Thus the natural born citizenship clause must mean something beside what is covered by the 14th is not a theory.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  6. #276
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    They're called "Birthers". From the Hillary supporters who started it to Donald Trump who continued it to the people who are trying to use it against Cruz. Indicative of what's wrong in this country.
    Well then, I guess they get a C for consistency. Who is this group politically then, independents?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #277
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Well then, I guess they get a C for consistency. Who is this group politically then, independents?
    Birthers have no political affiliation. They're just birthers.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  8. #278
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    Once one understands that the Constitution is not beholden to any Statute they should then know that no law has any authority in this argument.

    ...

    The only thing that matters is what the Founders meant by natural born citizen.
    If that's the case, why did Congress pass the Nationalization Act of 1790, the only U.S. law to ever define who was a natural-born citizen? Furthermore, why then did the law declare that children born abroad to "a free white man who was not a diplomat" were also natural-born U.S. citizens? Clearly, the Congress of the day were keenly aware of the possibility that an American male could travel abroad, impregnate a foreign female (mistress), and said (male) child would likely become his heir. So, they came up with a convenient caveat to the natural-born citizenship equation: no descendants of diplomats or royalty could ever become POTUS.

    Now, I get that "natural-born" by law was replaced with "citizen". I also understand how the Founding Fathers interpreted the term "natural-born" to mean under English common-law. But since 1795, the term "natural-born" has never formally been defined to mean anything other than "citizen." Therefore, it stands to reason that all individuals born:

    - on U.S. soil; or,
    - in U.S. territory,

    ...to at least one U.S. citizen parent is a natural-born citizen. If you disagree, should the term truly be done away with since it's meaning officially changed in 1795?

    Both our court system and INA law make it clear that if one's U.S. citizenship has to be bestowed upon a person via an application process, that individual clearly was not "naturally born" in this country. He/she had to do something in order to be granted citizenship. In converse, if you do something to have your U.S. citizenship removed (i.e., renounce or volunteer to join a foreign military), you forfeit your citizenship rights, natural-born or otherwise.

    The only distinction between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" is the place where you were born and to whom. You were either born here or in a U.S. territory to at least one U.S. citizen parent or you weren't. You're either a citizen, natural-born, a naturalized citizen (through process) or you're a national (someone born in a U.S. territory to non-U.S. citizen parents). That's it!

    Willing? No. You will be resigned to accede to their decision as legal authority on the issue, just as everyone else would.
    However way you wish to interpret my adherence with the law, be my guest. Doesn't change the fact that until either the Supreme Court or Congress clearly defines the natural-born citizen equation, I'll continue to follow INA law and not yours or anyone else's opinion of who is or is not a U.S. citizen, natural-born or otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post


    The Constitutional requirement that one be a "natural born citizen" is not a theory.
    That the Constitution is not beholden to any law, is not a theory.
    That the Supreme Court already recognized two categories of those who may be natural born citizens is not a theory. That one of those categories is covered by the 14th (Amendment) is not a theory.
    A clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect by another, is not a theory. Thus the natural born citizenship clause must mean something beside what is covered by the 14th is not a theory.
    In your opinion, what part of the 14th Amendment categorizes a "natural-born" citizen?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-18-15 at 01:10 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  9. #279
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Birthers have no political affiliation. They're just birthers.
    How do you know they have no political affiliation?.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #280
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    If that's the case,
    If? No it is the case. End of story. Bringing it up is irrelevant.
    The Constitution is not subordinate or beholden to any law. Period.

    Do you, or do you not know that?
    If you don't, there is no point going on as you simply do not know the subject material.
    If you do know it, you need to stop arguing irrelevant bs.



    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    why did Congress pass the Nationalization Act of 1790,
    Besides it not being relevant, the actual question should be why was it removed if it was intended? If it had been intended it would not have been removed.
    Like today, Congress passes things where they are not fully aware of the consequences of, and at times, not fully aware of the wording until after it has been enacted.

    The fact is that they changed the language for a reason. And never put it back in there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    the only U.S. law to ever define who was a natural-born citizen?
    Besides it not being relevant, it did not define it for Constitutional purposes. The crap you were quoting in the other threads conveniently pointed that out to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Furthermore, why then did the law declare that children born abroad to "a free white man who was not a diplomat" were also natural-born U.S. citizens? Clearly, the Congress of the day were keenly aware of the possibility that an American male could travel abroad, impregnate a foreign female (mistress), and said (male) child would likely become his heir. So, they came up with a convenient caveat to the natural-born citizenship equation: no descendants of diplomats or royalty could ever become POTUS.
    Still irrelevant. It was changed and did not define or supersede the Constitutional requirement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I also understand how the Founding Fathers interpreted the term "natural-born" to mean under English common-law.
    Not entirely correct. English common law is a last resort. You seem to forget that even though many of the laws of the time were based on English common law, we were no longer English Colonies and their laws were not in effect. Our common laws were.
    If the Court could find no available meaning from our shores then, and only then, would they turn to English common law.
    Regardless, the court has already recognized what the term could mean.

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    The above is the Court stating exactly that there is no doubt this group fits the meaning of natural born citizen within the common law and nomenclature of the time of that which our Founders were familiar with.
    The Court then goes on to state that there is a second class that some authorities suggest would also fall under the natural born citizen definition which there is doubt that they do.

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 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.

    That is the nbc argument as defined by the common law and nomenclature of the time as recognized by the court.
    Being on soil is not in question, parental citizenship is.

    The above as recognized by the court follows what has been provided by Vattel and the letter to Washington by John Jay.
    And the wording being adopted after the letter was sent to Washington is a strong indication that it was meant to eliminate the chance of those born with foreign allegiances from holding the office.

    Continues on next page.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

Page 28 of 33 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... 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
  •