• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president ‘unsettled’

RetiredUSN said:
Was hoping to get away from the birther thingy.

If Cruz wins, we get to listen to the tin foil hats for another 4 years.

Nice!:doh
Click to expand...
There is nothing "tin foil" about what the Supreme Court already established.


"Birth to a Citizen abroad" has already been established by the Supreme Court as being the Congress exercising their authority to establish an Uniform rule of Naturalization.
That is "Naturalization", not being born a natural born Citizen.
Even by the controlling definition of that legislation (which is the Congress exercising their authority to establish an Uniform rule of Naturalization), naturalization is established by any means and attaches after birth. This is regardless of what the actual language of what the law says.
 
Excon said:
Wut?
The Founders got what wrong?
And just how could it be wrong?
Click to expand...

That stuff about how a President has to have been born inside the borders of the US. It's ridiculous, especially considering that when it was written, nobody was 'natural born American', or however it's phrased.
 
Grand Mal said:
That stuff about how a President has to have been born inside the borders of the US. It's ridiculous, especially considering that when it was written, nobody was 'natural born American', or however it's phrased.
Click to expand...


It is a Constitutional requirement, as such, it just "is", as such they couldn't have gotten it "wrong".

If you do not like it and are a citizen, you are certainly entitled to try and have it changed.


Your opinion that it is ridiculous is what is really ridiculous.
 
Excon said:
It is a Constitutional requirement, as such, it just "is", as such they couldn't have gotten it "wrong".

If you do not like it and are a citizen, you are certainly entitled to try and have it changed.


Your opinion that it is ridiculous is what is really ridiculous.
Click to expand...

'Course they could have been wrong. The constitution wasn't divinely inspired, whispered by God into Jefferson's ear.
Why would they require 'natural born citizenship'? Hell, George Washington not only was an English citizen, as an officer he probably swore loyalty to the king. It's kind of hubris, isn't it, demanding that loyalties of all future presidents be absolutely undivided when your own could be questioned. The first half-dozen or so Presidents were ineligible, by the standards being applied today.
 
Grand Mal said:
'Course they could have been wrong. The constitution wasn't divinely inspired, whispered by God into Jefferson's ear.
Why would they require 'natural born citizenship'? Hell, George Washington not only was an English citizen, as an officer he probably swore loyalty to the king. It's kind of hubris, isn't it, demanding that loyalties of all future presidents be absolutely undivided when your own could be questioned. The first half-dozen or so Presidents were ineligible, by the standards being applied today.
Click to expand...
1. You have no idea what you are talking about. "The first half-dozen or so Presidents" were certainly eligible.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
​

2. No, it could not be wrong. It was intended to be such and can not be wrong.
 
Excon said:
1. You have no idea what you are talking about. "The first half-dozen or so Presidents" were certainly eligible.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
​

2. No, it could not be wrong. It was intended to be such and can not be wrong.
Click to expand...

How could it not be wrong? It's a creation of fallible, mortal men- of course it could be wrong. I think it's wrong to require 'natural born' citizenship. You disagree but the fact that it isn't wrong doesn't mean it couldn't be. If they hadn't have written that requirement into it, would it have been wrong?
 
Grand Mal said:
How could it not be wrong?
Click to expand...
Oy Vey!
Again.
It was intended to be such and can not be wrong.​


It is incapable of being wrong in the sense of what "wrong" means.



Dislike does not mean wrong.

In this case "wrong" would be not following the requirement.


Grand Mal said:
It's a creation of fallible, mortal men- of course it could be wrong.
Click to expand...
No. Not even the same thing.


Grand Mal said:
I think it's wrong to require 'natural born' citizenship.
Click to expand...
This is now an opinion which is not the same as your previously stated definitive.
Your disagreement doesn't make it wrong.
You thinking it is wrong doesn't make it wrong.

But as it is an intended requirement it can not be "wrong". It is how it is supposed to operate.


Grand Mal said:
You disagree but the fact that it isn't wrong doesn't mean it couldn't be.
Click to expand...
As it is as intended to operate in that manner it can not be wrong.



Grand Mal said:
If they hadn't have written that requirement into it, would it have been wrong?
Click to expand...
If they hadn't written the requirement into it we wouldn't be having this debate.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Was hoping to get away from the birther thingy.

If Cruz wins, we get to listen to the tin foil hats for another 4 years.

Nice!:doh
Click to expand...

There's a difference between unjustified, conspiratorial speculation that President Obama was born in Kenya and the known fact that Cruz was born in Canada with a non-US citizen parent.
 
Absentglare said:
There's a difference between unjustified, conspiratorial speculation that President Obama was born in Kenya and the known fact that Cruz was born in Canada with a non-US citizen parent.
Click to expand...
Yes there is a big difference between the two.


But equating the Obama subject as "unjustified, conspiratorial speculation" is false.

His own Literary Agency, Dystel & Goderich, had Obama listed as being born in Kenya.
That is not something a Literary Agency just makes up, but comes from information supplied from the client.

Though the information has since been removed from the agents site, it still can be obtained through the internet archive WaybackMachine.

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

Dystel Client List​



A copy of said information as it was in print.




That in no way makes it "unjustified, conspiratorial speculation".

Such speculation based on the above information was indeed justified which is a valid reason to question eligibility.



All of which has nothing to do with the fact that he was born owing a foreign allegiance.
 
Excon said:
Yes there is a big difference between the two.


But equating the Obama subject as "unjustified, conspiratorial speculation" is false.

His own Literary Agency, Dystel & Goderich, had Obama listed as being born in Kenya.
That is not something a Literary Agency just makes up, but comes from information supplied from the client.

Though the information has since been removed from the agents site, it still can be obtained through the internet archive WaybackMachine.

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

Dystel Client List​



A copy of said information as it was in print.




That in no way makes it "unjustified, conspiratorial speculation".

Such speculation based on the above information was indeed justified which is a valid reason to question eligibility.



All of which has nothing to do with the fact that he was born owing a foreign allegiance.
Click to expand...

President Obama claims to be born in the US.

Ted Cruz claims to have been born in Canada.
 
Absentglare said:
President Obama claims to be born in the US.

Ted Cruz claims to have been born in Canada.
Click to expand...
Your answer doesn't really address what was said.

Regardless ...

As I agreed; "Yes there is a big difference between the two."


Absentglare said:
President Obama claims to be born in the US.
Click to expand...
Only after letting it be known through is Literary Agency that he was born in Kenya.
Which made the question relevant.


The argument that exists against them both regardless of where they were born, is that they were both born owing a foreign allegiance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom