Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 321

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

  1. #281
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:36 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,795

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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?
    No it does not stand to reason. That is illogical. The founders knew what it meant.
    And no, what was meant by the Constitution was not officially changed. A statute has no control over what is meant by a Constitutional clause.
    Period.
    The only question is what the founders meant by it. The Court in Minor v. Happersett clearly indicated that only two classes were considered. One with "no doubt" and the other having doubts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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!
    No that is not it.
    The court system has not, and the INS is irrelevant to this discussion.
    The only thing relevant is what the founders intended by the clause.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'll continue to follow INA law
    Of course you will, because you do not understand that the Constitution is not beholden to a statute. That was something you should have learned years ago, and is something that the information you provided even tells you.

    If you understood the information from Marbury v. Madison you would understand that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
    You would also understand that a Clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect.
    That is your fault for not learning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    In your opinion, what part of the 14th Amendment categorizes a "natural-born" citizen?

    Never said it did.
    This is you not understanding what was said.

    The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett recognized two classes of citizen birth, one that is without a doubt naturally born, the other having doubts if it is.
    They wouldn't and couldn't go further to settle the issue as it was not before the Court for consideration.
    The class that has doubts as to whether they are naturally born citizens, is covered by the 14th Amendment as simply "citizens".
    So of the two recognized by the court, the only one left as natural born citizens are those born of US citizen parents on US soil, as the other is covered by the 14th.



    Look. I am not forcing you to engage in this debate.
    If you do not like having to deal with lengthy replies or rehashing what you think you already hashed, then stop replying.
    It is that simple.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  2. #282
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    8,721

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Look. I am not forcing you to engage in this debate.
    If you do not like having to deal with lengthy replies or rehashing what you think you already hashed, then stop replying.
    It is that simple.
    Sure, I'll bow out of the conversation but not before leaving you with this lengthy study entitled, "Presidential Eligibility", conducted by the Constitution Society, an organization whose summary findings on the matter of "natural-born citizenship" I'm sure you'd find most enlightening considering the fact that you're such a strict constitutionalist. I'd quote their findings here, but why deprive you of learning something.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  3. #283
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:36 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,795

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Sure, I'll bow out of the conversation but not before leaving you with this lengthy study entitled, "Presidential Eligibility", conducted by the Constitution Society, an organization whose summary findings on the matter of "natural-born citizenship" I'm sure you'd find most enlightening considering the fact that you're such a strict constitutionalist. I'd quote their findings here, but why deprive you of learning something.

    You never learn.
    1. That is not bowing out. That is again you avoiding answering.

    2. There you go providing something that is irrelevant.
    It's not even authoritative.

    You were already shown that the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett recognized two classes of citizen birth, one that is without a doubt naturally born, the other having doubts if it is.
    They wouldn't and couldn't go further to settle the issue as it was not before the Court for consideration.
    The class that has doubts as to whether they are naturally born citizens, is covered by the 14th Amendment as simply "citizens".
    So of the two recognized by the court, the only one left as natural born citizens are those born of US citizen parents on US soil, as the other is covered by the 14th.

    If you understood the information from Marbury v. Madison you would understand that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
    You would also understand that a Clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect.
    That is your fault for not learning.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  4. #284
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    8,721

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    You never learn.
    1. That is not bowing out. That is again you avoiding answering.

    2. There you go providing something that is irrelevant.
    It's not even authoritative.

    You were already shown that the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett recognized two classes of citizen birth, one that is without a doubt naturally born, the other having doubts if it is.
    They wouldn't and couldn't go further to settle the issue as it was not before the Court for consideration.
    The class that has doubts as to whether they are naturally born citizens, is covered by the 14th Amendment as simply "citizens".
    So of the two recognized by the court, the only one left as natural born citizens are those born of US citizen parents on US soil, as the other is covered by the 14th.

    If you understood the information from Marbury v. Madison you would understand that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
    You would also understand that a Clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect.
    That is your fault for not learning.
    The question is when will you get off your high horse and accept the fact that you don't have the natural-born citizenship equation completely accurate?

    Let's start from a place we both can agree on and go from there, shall we?

    We both agree that Sen. Ted Cruz does not meet the "natural-born citizen" eligibility requirement to be POTUS. He wasn't born in the U.S. That alone disqualifies him.

    Let us also agree that there are, in fact, two classes of "citizens" in the U.S.: Natural-born and citizen.

    Now, let's deal with the "citizen" issue first.

    In order to be declared a U.S. "citizen", your place of birth and who you were born to are the two key pieces to qualify. Such questions pertaining to one's birth need only come up IF the child were born abroad - outside the continental U.S. and its territories - or if he or she were a foreigner and wished to apply for U.S. citizenship. If born abroad, (at a minimum) you'd have to provide proof that at least one of your parents was, in fact, a U.S. citizen either "natural-born" or "naturalized". The other way to become a U.S. citizen is to go through the naturalization (application) process and become a naturalized citizen. This, in part, is what you've continuously referred to when you address "statutory" citizenship which is covered by current INA law. INA law also helps to determine who is a citizen at birth through parentage for those children born abroad. However, I disagree with your interpretation on who at birth is considered to be a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.

    You continue to reference "Minor v. Happersett" and the recognition the court gave to what our Founding Father's knew natural-born citizen to mean: 2 U.S. citizen parents. (Justone...is that really you? ) Problem here is two-fold:

    1) They wrongfully quoted from Vattel’s (See post #99) who was speaking on the issue of children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents when our Founding Fathers actually relied on William Blackstone; and,

    2) Theirs wasn't a definitive answer as to who was a natural-born citizen.

    So, where are we to first turn to find the answer to the "natural-born" citizen question? The Founding Fathers themselves, of course! And one of the foremost authorities to help shape our nation was Alexander Hamilton. Assuming you agree he was one of our Founding Fathers, let's see what he had to say on the subject:

    No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.
    Let's go a step further and see what James Madison, another Founding Father, had to say about it:

    It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
    (Continued in next post...)
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-20-15 at 03:19 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #285
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    8,721

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

    (Continued from post #284...)

    Now, as you've accurately pointed out, our Founding Fathers understood that the definition of a "natural-born" citizen was rooted in English Common Law. To that, let's now turn not inaccurately to Vattle but to William Blackstone and see what he had to say about it. From his literary work, "Commentaries on the Laws of England":

    The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
    "Born within the dominion(s)...allegiance". Sounds to me like Blackstone was basically saying, "if you are born to the soil of a country you are a natural-born citizen of that country" with natural allegiance to that country subject to its laws. And it makes sense!

    You can continue to quote Vattle and the recognition the Minor v. Happersett court gave to his version of what defines a natural-born citizen, but if you do you are wrong! To be a natural-born citizen of these United States of America, one only need be born to the soil regardless of who your parents are or where they were born. Of course, I would prefer that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen, but that's not how our Founding Fathers saw it. And neither should you. But until the Supreme Court rules on the matter, I'm perfectly fine with following INA to determine the U.S. citizenship equation, natural-born or just plain old citizen.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  6. #286
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 02:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    We both agree that Sen. Ted Cruz does not meet the "natural-born citizen" eligibility requirement to be POTUS. He wasn't born in the U.S. That alone disqualifies him.
    )
    I disagree with this. Just because your parents happened to not be in the US when you were born, doesn't make you not a natural born citizen (in my opinion- we'll have to let the courts fight it out, of course). What if my parents were on vacation in England when I was born? I'm not a natural born citizen?

    I think if you were born to US parents - or if you were born in the USA - you are a citizen and a natural born citizen. I don't think the dirt underneath your birth site disqualifies you.

    I know you and Excon both disagree. Like I said, it will be up to the courts. But there are lots better reasons to hope Cruz never becomes president.

  7. #287
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    8,721

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

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    I disagree with this. Just because your parents happened to not be in the US when you were born, doesn't make you not a natural born citizen (in my opinion- we'll have to let the courts fight it out, of course). What if my parents were on vacation in England when I was born? I'm not a natural born citizen?

    I think if you were born to US parents - or if you were born in the USA - you are a citizen and a natural born citizen. I don't think the dirt underneath your birth site disqualifies you.

    I know you and Excon both disagree. Like I said, it will be up to the courts. But there are lots better reasons to hope Cruz never becomes president.
    While I agree with you that it's unfair not to classify children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents as "natural-born" particularly under the scenario as you've described especially in this day and age, I can understand why the Founding Fathers insisted on such per Art II, Sect. 1 of the Constitution and why the "natural-born" qualifier was removed from the Naturalization Act of 1795.

    The presumption then (as it is now) is that those who are born "to the soil" will always remain loyal to the land of their birth. But occasionally, there are those odd ball situations, such as Sen. McCain's birth to two U.S. citizen parents in the Panama Canal Zone, that makes you scratch your head. You'd think he'd qualify, but the true understanding as to what defines one as "natural-born" works against him because he was born over there as opposed to right here.

    It sucks particularly for those folks who just so happen to depart the U.S. to travel abroad and end up having their child over seas. They return state-side only to learn that all the time they'd said to Little Johnny "one day you can grow up to be President of the United States" they were espousing a lie because their child was born over there despite the fact that his/her parents are citizens themselves. If anything, the "2 parent rule" under Vattle should apply here and such children born abroad should be deemed "natural-born" as opposed to just plain "citizen". Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be how it works.

    Born to the soil is the predominate factor for "natural-born" citizenship and, thus, a path to the White House. Those who disagree...we'll just have to wait until the Supreme Court or the next Constitutional Convention resolves the matter.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  8. #288
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    While I agree with you that it's unfair not to classify children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents as "natural-born" particularly under the scenario as you've described especially in this day and age, I can understand why the Founding Fathers insisted on such per Art II, Sect. 1 of the Constitution and why the "natural-born" qualifier was removed from the Naturalization Act of 1795.

    The presumption then (as it is now) is that those who are born "to the soil" will always remain loyal to the land of their birth. But occasionally, there are those odd ball situations, such as Sen. McCain's birth to two U.S. citizen parents in the Panama Canal Zone, that makes you scratch your head. You'd think he'd qualify, but the true understanding as to what defines one as "natural-born" works against him because he was born over there as opposed to right here.

    It sucks particularly for those folks who just so happen to depart the U.S. to travel abroad and end up having their child over seas. They return state-side only to learn that all the time they'd said to Little Johnny "one day you can grow up to be President of the United States" they were espousing a lie because their child was born over there despite the fact that his/her parents are citizens themselves. If anything, the "2 parent rule" under Vattle should apply here and such children born abroad should be deemed "natural-born" as opposed to just plain "citizen". Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be how it works.

    Born to the soil is the predominate factor for "natural-born" citizenship and, thus, a path to the White House. Those who disagree...we'll just have to wait until the Supreme Court or the next Constitutional Convention resolves the matter.
    It is much more likely that a person will remain loyal to the country their parents consider themselves citizens or that their parents are working to be citizens of (their parents are loyal to) than to where they were born. Would we assume that a child born to parents traveling to sightsee in China would be more loyal to China than America, the country their parents are from and possess loyalty to?

    There is no valid reason that "soil" should be above "parentage" when it comes to natural born. Where your parents' loyalty lies is a much better indicator of country loyalty the child will grow to have than the soil they are born on, and I can't see that the founding fathers would actually not see this.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #289
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    8,721

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It is much more likely that a person will remain loyal to the country their parents consider themselves citizens or that their parents are working to be citizens of (their parents are loyal to) than to where they were born.
    Right! Hence, the reason our Founding Fathers considered "natural-born" citizens to be the primary requisition for the office of the presidency. Certainly if the parents remained loyal subjects to the land where they reside the obvious conclusion one could reach is that the child would also remain loyal. Of course, there have been traitors in our midst before from Benedict Arnold to (presumably) Edward Snowden (verdict is still out), but few citizens who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the place where they were born have ever turned their back on their beloved country.

    Would we assume that a child born to parents traveling to sight-see in China would be more loyal to China than America, the country their parents are from and possess loyalty to?
    You espouse a very simplistic notion here. Nonetheless, the answer is no. One would not expect that any child born in a foreign land who resides their but briefly would have allegiance to said country. This would likely explain why our Constitution has a 14 years residence provision for anyone seeking the office of the President of the United States.

    There is no valid reason that "soil" should be above "parentage" when it comes to natural born. Where your parents' loyalty lies is a much better indicator of country loyalty the child will grow to have than the soil they are born on, and I can't see that the founding fathers would actually not see this.
    History actually proves you wrong here. However, that's not to say that parents don't have significant influence over their child's attitudes toward cultural or social behavior or even political views. Quite the contrary. In the natural order of things, it makes more sense that the longer you reside in a place, the more you embody the ideals and values of said place. Thus, being born to the soil can be a stronger force of will than who your parents are. Consider this: How many people do you know who were born in America seek to leave this country on a permanent basis versus those who'd just like to travel abroad on a temporary basis (i.e., vacation) and return home? I'm willing to bet not many. By the same token people may claim to hate government, but they'd much rather just "deal with it" than cast their vote to affect change. And when they do vote, we're all very willing to wait things out and see if change ever comes, if things ever get better. But pack up and leave is something we rarely, if ever, do.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  10. #290
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Right! Hence, the reason our Founding Fathers considered "natural-born" citizens to be the primary requisition for the office of the presidency. Certainly if the parents remained loyal subjects to the land where they reside the obvious conclusion one could reach is that the child would also remain loyal. Of course, there have been traitors in our midst before from Benedict Arnold to (presumably) Edward Snowden (verdict is still out), but few citizens who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the place where they were born have ever turned their back on their beloved country.

    You espouse a very simplistic notion here. Nonetheless, the answer is no. One would not expect that any child born in a foreign land who resides their but briefly would have allegiance to said country. This would likely explain why our Constitution has a 14 years residence provision for anyone seeking the office of the President of the United States.

    History actually proves you wrong here. However, that's not to say that parents don't have significant influence over their child's attitudes toward cultural or social behavior or even political views. Quite the contrary. In the natural order of things, it makes more sense that the longer you reside in a place, the more you embody the ideals and values of said place. Thus, being born to the soil can be a stronger force of will than who your parents are. Consider this: How many people do you know who were born in America seek to leave this country on a permanent basis versus those who'd just like to travel abroad on a temporary basis (i.e., vacation) and return home? I'm willing to bet not many. By the same token people may claim to hate government, but they'd much rather just "deal with it" than cast their vote to affect change. And when they do vote, we're all very willing to wait things out and see if change ever comes, if things ever get better. But pack up and leave is something we rarely, if ever, do.
    Most of us have our families here though, so your question is pretty much pointless in the discussion as to whether loyalty to family/parents/loved ones is more important than loyalty to soil. Although loyalty can change as we grow older, due to our experiences and gaining knowledge, the loyalty is still not generally to the "soil" itself (except for those who are taught that) but rather to their families, their history, their loved ones, the familiarity, or even the ideals that a person agrees with. There are people who are taught by their families and those they grow up around that loyalty should be to their country, to that soil. But there are more of us who are taught that the loyalty should be to the ideals of our country, not to the soil itself, or to our families. Loyalty to family or ideals is much more powerful than loyalty to soil. Just look at the migrations of people to different parts of our own country, different states. Although there are plenty of people who stay for generation after generation in the same state, there are many more who easily give up that "loyalty" to the soil where they were born just to seek better opportunities in other states or because they prefer other states.

    Now, growing up in an area may give a person a certain sense of loyalty to that area, but not simply being born there. And that sense of loyalty is not normally going to outweigh our sense of loyalty to other things.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... 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
  •