• 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’

Frank Apisa said:
Whatever makes you think I reject "the father of the Constitution, James Madison?" I may disagree with some things Madison put into the Constitution...or left out. I think most people do. Don't you?

That is not "rejecting" him.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a small group of people who cannot tell the difference between the contributions Madison made in developing the Constitution and the personal opinions Madison gave during his lifetime. They treat one with the same gravity and weight as the other and engage in the fraud of telling us what Madison thought about something and that is suppose to replace or add to constitutional language or interpret it for us.
 
Somerville said:
So you are not an 'originalist', one who thinks the only proper interpretation of the Constitution is that understood by those white, affluent gentlemen who wrote it and voted for it.
Click to expand...

The Founders were concerned that a foreign born *adult would gain citizenship and become POTUS not, a child.
 
iguanaman said:
Except the Constitution doesn't not just say any citizen is eligible. It includes "natural born" and honestly Cruz was naturally born Canadian and held Canadian citizenship for most of his life.
Click to expand...

Duel citizenship.
 
DA60 said:
You just know that Trump is going to pound Cruz into the ground with this...he will be relentless (imo).

And I hate to say it (because the more Trump says, the more I dislike him), but he may have a point. This could be a distraction for the voters if Cruz gets the nomination.

I do not know how, but this should get settled soon (if possible). But it sounds like it will take the SCOTUS to do it.

Why this was not settled long ago is beyond me.
Click to expand...

One would think this would be black and white. But there is a lot of gray here. For one thing, since his father is Cuban does this also mean he is a Cuban citizen?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Whatever makes you think I reject "the father of the Constitution, James Madison?" I may disagree with some things Madison put into the Constitution...or left out. I think most people do. Don't you?

That is not "rejecting" him.
Click to expand...

no i dont, its a very simple document, tell me what was left out of the document which created federalism.
 
WCH said:
The Founders were concerned that a foreign born *adult would gain citizenship and become POTUS not, a child.
Click to expand...

For examples of the complexity of the question and why the case will end up before the Supreme Court, here are two opinion pieces from law professors.

Mary Brigid McManamon, a law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School, makes the case that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president because “natural born citizen” applies only to those born within U.S. territories.

Jonathan H. Adler is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western University School of Law writes that Cruz is a "natural born" citizen.

The question then comes down to who has standing to file suit; Trump seems to be leaning toward such a filing
This morning (Jan 17, 2016) Trump suggested he may file a lawsuit against Cruz’s eligibility to be president, because he would have standing to challenge it as Cruz’s rival. “That sounds like a very good case. I’d do the public a big favor. It’s a good idea– maybe I’ll talk to them about it. I’d like to talk to Ted about it, see how he’d feel about it. ‘Cause you know, when I file suits, I file real suits.” Yesterday radio talk show host Mark Levin offered Trump friendly advice: “Either cut the crap – your accusations this morning that Cruz is Canadian, a criminal, owned by big banks, etc. – or you will lose lots and lots of conservatives.”

Read more at: Cruz-Friendly Conservatives Suddenly See Trump Clearly
Click to expand...

The Trumpster does appear to have upset the GOP 'establishment'
 
Crosscheck said:
One would think this would be black and white. But there is a lot of gray here. For one thing, since his father is Cuban does this also mean he is a Cuban citizen?
Click to expand...
That would be dependent on Cuban nationality law. Whatever the outcome, it has no bearing on whether he was a US citizen by birth, and is irrelevant.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
That would be dependent on Cuban nationality law. Whatever the outcome, it has no bearing on whether he was a US citizen by birth, and is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Simply being born a citizen doe snot make one a "natural born Citizen".
 
Excon said:
Simply being born a citizen doe snot make one a "natural born Citizen".
Click to expand...

Simply being born a citizen does not NECESSARILY make one a "natural born citizen." That is a question the courts may one day have to decide.

Ahhh...now that sounds better!
 
Just a note It is irrelevent who some other country recognizes as a citizen or not. I have automatic American, German and Israeli citizenship. It in zero way impacts my American citizenship.

Even Amercan soldiers can be of another citizenship. When I went through training in the USA after returning from the IDF, there were two Canadian citizens who had joined up during the Vietnam War. They were still Canadian and never applied for US citizenship.

It's irrelevent if Cuba recognizes Rubio as a Cuban or Canada has some claim to Cruz. All that matters is American recognition.
 
Excon said:
Simply being born a citizen doe snot make one a "natural born Citizen".
Click to expand...

Take a minute and reread that statement. If it doesn't sound ridiculously irrational, you're rationaling wrong.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Take a minute and reread that statement. If it doesn't sound ridiculously irrational, you're rationaling wrong.
Click to expand...

"Natural born citizen" is not the same as "citizen."

You may have blood right to citizenship (your parent(s) were citizens), you may have soil right to citizenship (you were born on US soil), or you may be an immigrant who later became a citizen by passing the citizenship test.

Not all forms of acquiring citizenship satisfy the phrase "natural born citizen."

It is uncontroversial that someone who was born on US soil to two US citizens is a "natural born citizen." The idea that Cruz, who has one foreign parent and was born in Canada, may not qualify as a "natural born citizen" may have merit, though he is a US citizen.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Simply being born a citizen does not NECESSARILY make one a "natural born citizen." That is a question the courts may one day have to decide.

Ahhh...now that sounds better!
Click to expand...
The information already provided makes it clear that Naturalization is not being born a "natural born Citizen".

What exactly did you not understand about the Court recognizing this legislation was "Naturalization"?
What did you not understand about the controlling definition recognizing it as legislation and actually not attaching until after birth?
Something that does not attache until after birth, regardless of it's wording, is not the state the person is born with.

Again Frank.

Excon said:
Cruz is a citizen by legislation.
Citizenship by legislation has been recognized by the Court as the Congress exercising their Constitutionally granted Power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
The controlling definition of said legislation also recognizes it as "Naturalization" and establishes it as attaching after birth by any means whatsoever.

Naturalization in the US is a legislative product (a citizen by law) and attaches after birth.

8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 1101 - Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
[...]
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
[...]​
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101​


This is the SCt acknowledging that it is "Naturalization"

As the Court acknowledged in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).


"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

[...]

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

[...]

And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
​

So how do you interpret the factual information provided above?
Click to expand...
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Take a minute and reread that statement. If it doesn't sound ridiculously irrational, you're rationaling wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.
Regardless of the "doe snot" actually being "does not", there is noting irrational about what was said.

A citizen by legislation is not a "natural born Citizen".
That should be obviously to anybody because something had to be created (a law) to grant the "citizenship".

As already provided.
Excon said:
Cruz is a citizen by legislation.
Citizenship by legislation has been recognized by the Court as the Congress exercising their Constitutionally granted Power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
The controlling definition of said legislation also recognizes it as "Naturalization" and establishes it as attaching after birth by any means whatsoever.

Naturalization in the US is a legislative product (a citizen by law) and attaches after birth.

8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 1101 - Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
[...]
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
[...]​
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101​


This is the SCt acknowledging that it is "Naturalization"

As the Court acknowledged in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).


"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

[...]

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

[...]

And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
​
Click to expand...

You thinking "natural born" Citizenship is established by legislation is absolutely hilarious.
 
Excon said:
The information already provided makes it clear that Naturalization is not being born a "natural born Citizen".

What exactly did you not understand about the Court recognizing this legislation was "Naturalization"?
What did you not understand about the controlling definition recognizing it as legislation and actually not attaching until after birth?
Something that does not attache until after birth, regardless of it's wording, is not the state the person is born with.

Again Frank.

​
Click to expand...

Like the people who want to assert it is clear Cruz IS a natural born citizen, Excon, you want to assert you have the final say in interpreting what has not yet been adequately interpreted...by asserting he IS NOT a natural born citizen.

What do you not understand about YOU not being the final say in this matter?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Like the people who want to assert it is clear Cruz IS a natural born citizen, Excon, you want to assert you have the final say in interpreting what has not yet been adequately interpreted...by asserting he IS NOT a natural born citizen.

What do you not understand about YOU not being the final say in this matter?
Click to expand...
What was provided is factual information.

It's meaning is clear.
He is a citizen by "Naturalization" which only attaches after birth.


The only valid reply to the previously provided information is an admittance that the language is clear and that is what it says with the caveat that of course the Court can find however they choose.
 
Excon said:
What was provided is factual information.

It's meaning is clear.
He is a citizen by "Naturalization" which only attaches after birth.


The only valid reply to the previously provided information is an admittance that the language is clear and that is what it says with the caveat that of course the Court can find however they choose.
Click to expand...

Obviously it is not clear...since learned people both agree and disagree with what you are saying here.

If it were clear...ALL SCHOLARS would agree with you.

It is NOT clear...and the people who will decide (if they ever do decide the issue) may go either way on the question.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Obviously it is not clear...since learned people both agree and disagree with what you are saying here.

If it were clear...ALL SCHOLARS would agree with you.

It is NOT clear...and the people who will decide (if they ever do decide the issue) may go either way on the question.
Click to expand...
No, it is clear.

Those arguing against choose to ignore the language used which makes it clear. They fail to refute it each and every time.

It is "Naturalization" as recognized by the Court and as defined by controlling definition.
There has been no valid argument made in opposition to this specific.
 
Excon said:
No, it is clear.

Those arguing against choose to ignore the language used which makes it clear. They fail to refute it each and every time.

It is "Naturalization" as recognized by the Court and as defined by controlling definition.
There has been no valid argument made in opposition to this specific.
Click to expand...

It is not clear.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is not clear.
Click to expand...
Doh!
Wrong frank.
It is so clear no one has been able to refute it because they can not.


Go ahead Frank.
Show how the factual information (controlling definition and Court recognition) contained in the following post is not clear.

We are waiting.


Excon said:
The law is pretty clear on this issue.
Cruz is a citizen by legislation.
Citizenship by legislation has been recognized by the Court as the Congress exercising their Constitutionally granted Power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
The controlling definition of said legislation also recognizes it as "Naturalization" and establishes it as attaching after birth by any means whatsoever.

Naturalization in the US is a legislative product (a citizen by law) and attaches after birth.

8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 1101 - Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
[...]
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
[...]​
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101​


This is the SCt acknowledging that it is "Naturalization"

As the Court acknowledged in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).


"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

[...]

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

[...]

And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
​

So how do you interpret the factual information provided above?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The only thing that matters about his eligibility is the law. As it stands. Today.
No brainer really.
*Runs off to find real issues*
 
Excon said:
Doh!
Wrong frank.
It is so clear no one has been able to refute it because they can not.


Go ahead Frank.
Show how the factual information (controlling definition and Court recognition) contained in the following post is not clear.

We are waiting.


​
Click to expand...

C'mon, Excon...if the SCOTUS were to take the situation for consideration...and come to the conclusion that Cruz and everyone else born in that situation WERE DEEMED A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN...that is what it would be.

The Constitution says whatever the SOTUS says it says...NOT WHAT YOU SAY IT SAYS.

Try to grasp that concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom