Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 321

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

  1. #291
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 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
    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?

    You are the one that needs to get off their horse and realize your argument is not accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Let's start from a place we both can agree on and go from there, shall we?
    Wtf do you think I have been trying to get you to do?

    Again:
    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.


    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.

    A statute has no control over what is meant by a Constitutional clause.

    Once you admit this, we can then disregard all the irrelevant bs you have provided and move on.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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.
    Misstating. That is two citizen parents on US soil.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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.
    The problem is you that you are wrong and are now mixing two different things.
    They did not misstate Vattels's work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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:

    Let's go a step further and see what James Madison, another Founding Father, had to say about it:

    The Court turned to Common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. They said nothing of Hamilton or Madison.
    That Court recognized that the information it turned to showed ...
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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.
    Just stop. You have already been told that is not accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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!
    You are clearly confused. The Court went to common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, and said two classes fell into that, both of which required soil.
    The first class consisted of two citizen parents with birth on soil, of which there were no doubts they were nbc's.
    The second class which was just birth on soil their were doubts at.
    That second class is covered under the 14th.
    And a Constitutional clause may not be left without any effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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.
    Wrong.
    Both need to be and they both must not have foreign allegiance that transfers to their offspring from any dual citizenship.
    You are not natural born with dual citizenship.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'm perfectly fine with following INA to determine the U.S. citizenship equation, natural-born or just plain old citizen.
    In regards to NBC you are just plain wrong as the Constitution is not subordinate or beholden to a statute. Once you recognize reality, that argument falls apart.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  2. #292
    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

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on the natural-born citizenship equation. Regardless, I'll take William Blackstone's view over Vattle's as their have been instances where the identity of the father of a child born on U.S. soil could not be determined (i.e., rape) and, as such, it would be foolhardy to classify such a person as merely as "citizen" and deny same the opportunity to become POTUS simply because no father was listed on the child's birth certificate. Still, if you insist on holding true to the 2-parent rule per Vattle, I think the rulings from these two lower court cases, Look Tin Sing and Daiz-Salazar, would suggest otherwise.

    But as I've said before, until the Supreme Court rules definitively on this 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

  3. #293
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,020

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    We'll just have to agree to disagree on the natural-born citizenship equation. Regardless, I'll take William Blackstone's view over Vattle's as their have been instances where the identity of the father of a child born on U.S. soil could not be determined (i.e., rape) and, as such, it would be foolhardy to classify such a person as merely as "citizen" and deny same the opportunity to become POTUS simply because no father was listed on the child's birth certificate. Still, if you insist on holding true to the 2-parent rule per Vattle, I think the rulings from these two lower court cases, Look Tin Sing and Daiz-Salazar, would suggest otherwise.

    But as I've said before, until the Supreme Court rules definitively on this matter, I'm perfectly fine with following INA to determine the U.S. citizenship equation, natural-born or just plain old citizen.
    If you want to know what the historical view of this was then take a look at how this clause was used to bludgeon candidates in the past. 135 years ago, it was argued that Chester Arthur was ineligible to be Vice President and soon after President on the grounds that he was allegedly born in Ireland or Canada and that his father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until many years after his birth. The only thing that could be proved was that he had lied about the year of his birth, the year of his father's immigration, and the year of his father's naturalization. We'll never really know whether he was born on foreign soil since he destroyed his personal documents, but it goes to show these were things that people thought were relevant to eligibility then. If Cruz wins the nomination, which is highly unlikely, then this is something the Supreme Court will need to look at.

  4. #294
    Sage
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chad1389 View Post

    Why was Obama given so much flack about this very thing? His mother was natural born as well. I'm not really understanding this. IMO, He wasn't born here naturally, he should not be allowed to run. Where his mom was born really shouldn't count. Where he was should.
    First off Obama was born in Hawaii so he should've gotten no flack at all.

    But let's pretend he were born in Kenya, which he wasn't but this is for illustrative purposes only, obamas mother
    Would've had to have been a natural citizen AND have lived in the US for a certain number of years since turning 14. Based on immigration law In 1961.

    If Ted Cruz were born in canada and his mother had never lived in the US since 14 he would not be a citizen
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  5. #295
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 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
    But as I've said before, until the Supreme Court rules definitively on this matter, I'm perfectly fine with following INA to determine the U.S. citizenship equation, natural-born or just plain old citizen.
    Yes, you already said this same nonsense. D'oh!
    Again demonstrating that you do not understand that the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen is not, and can not be, beholden to such .
    Just as you apparently do not understand that a constitutional clause can not be left without effect by another.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I think the rulings from these two lower court cases, Look Tin Sing and Daiz-Salazar, would suggest otherwise.
    1. This is lazy. You just say; {Here, here are two cases.} You fail to quote what in those cases you think is relevant and how it applies.
    2. Regardless, you are again wrong and continue to demonstrate you do not understand what you are reading. Neither case is beneficial to your position.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Regardless, I'll take William Blackstone's view over Vattle's as their have been instances where the identity of the father of a child born on U.S. soil could not be determined (i.e., rape) and, as such, it would be foolhardy to classify such a person as merely as "citizen" and deny same the opportunity to become POTUS simply because no father was listed on the child's birth certificate.
    Opinion noted and dismissed as irrelevant.
    And apparently you do not know what foolhardy means as the word does not apply. Doing such is not recklessly bold or rash.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  6. #296
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chad1389 View Post
    Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president | Fox News

    "While questions about Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president haven’t drawn much attention, two former Justice Department lawyers have weighed in with a bipartisan verdict: Cruz, they say, is eligible to run for the White House. Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration, got out in front of the issue in a Harvard Law Review article. “There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” they wrote."

    "The law review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen”, asserts that the interpretation of the term was settled in Cruz’s favor as early as the 1700’s. The lawyers wrote that the Supreme Court has long used British common law and enactments of the First Congress for guidance on defining a “natural born citizen.” “Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent,” they wrote. They concluded someone like Cruz had “no need to go through naturalization proceedings,” making him eligible. Cruz is still weighing a presidential run.

    "Last month, Cruz addressed the citizenship issue during a question-and-answer session with moderator Sean Hannity, of Fox News, at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth,” Cruz said. “Under federal law, that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”


    Why was Obama given so much flack about this very thing? His mother was natural born as well. I'm not really understanding this. IMO, He wasn't born here naturally, he should not be allowed to run. Where his mom was born really shouldn't count. Where he was should.
    That certainly makes sense to me and seems legitimate. But it would almost certainly be contested.

  7. #297
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Good...I would vote for him
    What do you like about him?

  8. #298
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:33 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    First off Obama was born in Hawaii so he should've gotten no flack at all.
    No, he should have received flak and been disqualified for having been born with foreign allegiances.


    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    But let's pretend he were born in Kenya, which he wasn't but this is for illustrative purposes only, obamas mother
    Would've had to have been a natural citizen AND have lived in the US for a certain number of years since turning 14. Based on immigration law In 1961.
    Under your pretense, she did not meet the criteria and he then should have been disqualified.


    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If Ted Cruz were born in canada and his mother had never lived in the US since 14 he would not be a citizen
    Cruz was born a Canadian citizen, owing Canadian allegiance and has a Canadian Birth Certificate. He was granted US Citizenship by Statute (Not the Constitution.) because his mother was a US citizen. He is not a natural born citizen.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle

  9. #299
    Sage
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    No, he should have received flak and been disqualified for having been born with foreign allegiances.



    Under your pretense, she did not meet the criteria and he then should have been disqualified.



    Cruz was born a Canadian citizen, owing Canadian allegiance and has a Canadian Birth Certificate. He was granted US Citizenship by Statute (Not the Constitution.) because his mother was a US citizen. He is not a natural born citizen.
    The constitution does not define natural born citizen by itself. Therefore plain meaning applies. Since Cruz was granted US citizenship due to federal law he is eligible. No court will rule otherwise
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  10. #300
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    What do you like about him?
    Mostly his insistence on adhering to the Constitution.

    Ted Cruz on the Issues

    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •