• 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!

Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Natural born citizen was never clearly defined in the Constitution though. There is definite question on what that would be in this day and age, when there are no longer real social consequences for having a child out of wedlock nor is it at all rare for people to be stationed overseas for the military or just simply have their child overseas just due to an issue out of their control. Those things really weren't likely in the past, especially when it came to woman, who wasn't likely to be traveling between the countries often, if at all.
Your argument matters not to what the requirement is.
It didn't need to be defined. The founders knew what it meant.
And while the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue they know where to ascertain the meaning of natural born Citizen, which is in the language which our founders were familiar with. ie: The information previously provided regarding Vattel's The Laws of Nations, and with John Jay's letter to Washington.
 
Your argument matters not to what the requirement is.
And while the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue they know where to ascertain the meaning of natural born Citizen, which is in the language which our founders were familiar with. ie: The information previously provided regarding Vattel's The Laws of Nations, and with John Jay's letter to Washington.

I highly doubt the SCOTUS would see it that way if it became an issue. Especially if the person was a son or daughter of a military service member born overseas. It simply would not be fair. The simple fact is that part of the Constitution was meant to limit the ability of an adult to come over as a citizen of another country and become our President after only being a citizen for a few years or having been raised as a citizen of another country.
 
Last edited:
If you'll take a second look at my comment you'll see that I didn't call Cruz anything.

I just said that his mouth will keep him out of the White House because I believe that's what's going to happen.

Lets wait and see what happens in 2016.

Just talking democrats and republicans in general. Tea Party has been called more names than anyone, but they tend to be the ones that express themselves the best. You could say that his mouth will keep him out, but it just might get him in, or at least in the race. Worked for Reagan. And we are talking landslides for Reagan.
 
I highly doubt the SCOTUS would see it that way if it became an issue. Especially if the person was a son or daughter of a military service member born overseas. It simply would not be fair.
Fair doesn't matter to the the letter of the Constitution.
(sarcasm) For ****'s sake. Why not just let anyone who was born anywhere become the President. It is unfair to them if we do not. (end sarcasm)
A fairness argument is absurd as it is ridiculous.


The simple fact is that part of the Constitution was meant to limit the ability of an adult to come over as a citizen of another country and become our President after only being a citizen for a few years or having been raised as a citizen of another country.
It was meant to keep those who were not born of citizen parents, not on US soil, and those with a foreign allegiance from becoming the President.
 
Last edited:
Fair doesn't matter to the the letter of the Constitution.
(sarcasm) For ****'s sake. Why not just let anyone who was born anywhere become the President. It is unfair to them if we do not. (end sarcasm)
A fairness argument is absurd as it is ridiculous.

It simply isn't right to consider that reasoning behind the rule applies to babies born outside of the country but still considered citizens at birth.
 
It simply isn't right to consider that reasoning behind the rule applies to babies born outside of the country but still considered citizens at birth.
Yes it is.

Like I said. If you do not like it, amend the Constitution.


Mexican citizens are giving birth in this country. By our laws, should their children be Mexican citizens?

Regardless, it is right and fair and is why we have had Naturalization and Immigration Acts to cover such situations.
 
Last edited:
Just talking democrats and republicans in general. Tea Party has been called more names than anyone, but they tend to be the ones that express themselves the best. You could say that his mouth will keep him out, but it just might get him in, or at least in the race. Worked for Reagan. And we are talking landslides for Reagan.

Cruz hasn't got a chance. He'll make noise, but he won't even get the Republican nomination. He's way too far right on issues, especially social issues.

And as been pointed out many times Reagan was moderate, maybe even a little to the left on most social issues. He wasn't seen as a fanatic. His terms as gov. of Cali and president proves he was actually very moderate.

Don't compare Cruz to Reagan, or today's GOP to the GOP of the 80's. It's apples and oranges.
 
Just talking democrats and republicans in general. Tea Party has been called more names than anyone, but they tend to be the ones that express themselves the best. You could say that his mouth will keep him out, but it just might get him in, or at least in the race. Worked for Reagan. And we are talking landslides for Reagan.



As a matter of fact I voted for Reagan back in 1980. Cruz doesn't even come close to having the charisma that Reagan had.

The more that I see and hear Cruz, the less I like him and he started out pretty low with me. :roll:
 
As a matter of fact I voted for Reagan back in 1980. Cruz doesn't even come close to having the charisma that Reagan had.

The more that I see and hear Cruz, the less I like him and he started out pretty low with me. :roll:

Being a conservative in 1980 is nothing like the conservatives of today. Reagan was seen as conservative, but not a fanatic who would tear everything down just to save it. That's how most TP politicians are seen as nowadays. As fanatics, as people who would burn down a town to save it, as people who are seen who have to be 100% ideologically pure, so they refuse to compromise with anyone who isn't. And that scares voters.

Reagan was never seen as that, he was actually very good at compromising. And moderate on many issues. And the voters knew that. Many Dems liked Reagan. I know of no moderate Republican or Dem who likes Cruz, let alone vote for him.
 
Yes it is.

Like I said. If you do not like it, amend the Constitution.


Mexican citizens are giving birth in this country. By our laws, should their children be Mexican citizens?

Regardless, it is right and fair and is why we have had Naturalization and Immigration Acts to cover such situations.

Honestly, I absolutely think they should be Mexican citizens, not American citizens if their parents are Mexican, especially if both parents are. But in accordance with our laws, they are US citizens, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be other ways for people to be "natural born US citizens".
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I absolutely think they should be Mexican citizens, not American citizens if their parents are Mexican, especially if both parents are.

Well that is something. :thumbs:

Now if they had a natural born Citizen clause like ours, they wouldn't be eligible to be el Presidente because they were not born on Mexican soil.
 
The one thing birthers hate more than being called racist... is black people.
 
This is good news on the legal front. I would be very very happy to see the GOP nominate ted Cruz for President in 2016.
 
Well that is something. :thumbs:

Now if they had a natural born Citizen clause like ours, they wouldn't be eligible to be el Presidente because they were not born on Mexican soil.

No, ours should simply include those citizens of ours born outside of the US but with at least one parent who is a US citizen.
 
No, ours should simply include those citizens of ours born outside of the US but with at least one parent who is a US citizen.
Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the case.

Why you you do not want to abide by the Constitution is beyond me.
Do you just not follow any law you do not like?

Again. If you do not like it, try to have the Constitution amended.
 
Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the case.

Why you you do not want to abide by the Constitution is beyond me.
Do you just not follow any law you do not like?

Again. If you do not like it, try to have the Constitution amended.

Why? "Natural born citizen" has not been clarified by the actual Constitution. The only real thing it would almost certainly exclude is those who were naturalized. Those who have parents who are citizens are not naturalized. You are the one wrong here.

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
 
Why? "Natural born citizen" has not been clarified by the actual Constitution.
It didn't need clarification. The Founders knew what it meant.
Do you or do you not understand that the founders knew what it meant?

And we can ascertain that from the language which our founders were familiar with, which was the information already provided from Vattel and John Jay.
What did you not understand about that info?
It was known what natural born meant.



:naughty
No, you are the one who is wrong here.
The Congressional Research Service does not dictate what is and isn't. The Supreme Court would.

All you provided was an opinion, an opinion that falls short of actual reliable research into the topic.
And coming as it does from the time period makes is suspect to begin with.

It is nothing more than an opinion concocted to present an invalid take on the actual law.
And it is wrong, as the weight of legal and historical authority is clearly on the side or parents needing to be being citizens, being born on the soil of the Country and owing no allegiances to a foreign country.


Now if you like you may use that report and it's cites and we can debate. And I can show you each step of the way were it is wrong.

If you like we can start with them saying that English Common law is the source that the Courts turn to to determine the meaning.
That is inaccurate. It is; "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,"
That nomenclature with which our framers were familiar with can be ascertain by the previously provided information on Vattel and John Jay.


88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett ()

Argued: February 9, 1875
Decided: March 29, 1875


The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.​
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
 
Are you really not reading this thread?
As already pointed out, she got it wrong.

Again, I told which posts to read to find my position. Avail yourself of the information.


:doh
No it is not a stupid reason.
Why should it be? That is what the Constitution says.
If you do not like that, get it amended, until such time comes, it stands.

I said I get it! It's cool, McCain and Cruz were not born on US soil, so they're both not eligible for the presidency, whereas having been born on US soil Obama is.
 
I said I get it! It's cool, McCain and Cruz were not born on US soil, so they're both not eligible for the presidency, whereas having been born on US soil Obama is.

:doh
No you don't get it.
 
Cruz hasn't got a chance. He'll make noise, but he won't even get the Republican nomination. He's way too far right on issues, especially social issues.

Again, with the "he hasn't got a chance". There's nothing that supports that. Obama won, that means everyone has a chance, if he could win.

And as been pointed out many times Reagan was moderate, maybe even a little to the left on most social issues. He wasn't seen as a fanatic. His terms as gov. of Cali and president proves he was actually very moderate.
Reagan was a solid conservative.

Don't compare Cruz to Reagan, or today's GOP to the GOP of the 80's. It's apples and oranges.
I'm comparing them in a the way that they aren't afraid to state their positions, and are both conservatives.
 
:doh
No you don't get it.

Why are you being so coy? Let's take them one at a time then, shall we? Was John McCain qualified to be president, based upon his birthright and birth place?
 
As a matter of fact I voted for Reagan back in 1980. Cruz doesn't even come close to having the charisma that Reagan had.

The more that I see and hear Cruz, the less I like him and he started out pretty low with me. :roll:

Well, I voted for Carter. Voted for Reagan the next election. Very few have the charisma of Reagan, but doesn't mean he can't win. We sure could use him. I don't know if he is my first choice, but I would sure would vote for him.
I also voted for Clinton and Gore, and I don't see a democrat today that I would even consider voting for.
 
Your postings?
I do not need to search the forum for your posts if you can not be bothered to provide them.

Here's the thread I started years ago on the issue of "natural-born -vs- U.S. citizen".
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...en-vs-u-s-citizen-argument-both-one-same.html

The only thing we seem to agree with is what I originally stated.
The Supreme Court has not settled this issue.

Fair enough. However, I believe our legal system has determined through legal precedent that a "natural-born U.S. citizen" is, in fact, defined as a person who is born in the U.S. or one of its outlying territories regardless of where the individual's parents were born. Such was the ruling in this U.S. Appeals Court case, SoS Achesen -vs- Maenza (1953), where a child born in the U.S. to two Italian born parents who retained his U.S. "natural-born" citizenship status based: 1) on the place of his birth (Cleveland, OH) and, 2) the fact that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship despite being "forced" to serve in the Italian Army. Notice this case is similar to U.S. -vs- Wong Kim Ark.

In both case, the Courts ruled that, ""All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens." Now, we can continue arguing the distinction between "natural-born citizen" and plain old "U.S. citizen" til the cows come home. I'll just state that IMO the difference between the two are:

Natural-born citizen = born to U.S. soil/jurisdiction under the law

U.S. citizen = citizenship granted through the naturalization (application) process

Thus, where being POTUS is concerned, their IS a difference.
 
Why are you being so coy? Let's take them one at a time then, shall we? Was John McCain qualified to be president, based upon his birthright and birth place?
As you were told, they were already addressed.
And you were directed to the posts that would clarify your feigned ignorance of my position.
 
As you were told, they were already addressed.
And you were directed to the posts that would clarify your feigned ignorance of my position.

I said enough times now that they don't. So just answer the ****ing question. Was McCain qualified or not?
 
Back
Top Bottom