• 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

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.

I agree. It's one thing to pound on the table and say "Founder's Intent!" - but 200+ years later, a lot of things have changed. I'm pretty sure what the founders meant is what you wrote and the SCOTUS would probably interpret it that way.
 
It didn't need clarification. The Founders knew what it meant.

You may not have noticed, but we have changed a lot of things since "the founders". Their views are not sacrosanct.
 
As you were told, they were already addressed.
And you were directed to the posts that would clarify your feigned ignorance of my position.

ROFL. in the amount of time you've spent typing that we misunderstood you and we should go look at your posts in this very long thread (without telling us which posts) you could have just restated -in summary - the answer to the question.

McCain - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born
Cruz - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born
Obama - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born

They all had at least one parent who was a born and bred US citizen, so that's not a disqualifier
 
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
Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?



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.
Unfortunately your belief is wrong.


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."
No they did not.
Neither Court made such a ruling.


The Court in Wong only ruled he was a citizen.
Here is the wording of the actual ruling from your link.

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Clearly that does not say "natural born citizen", just "citizen".


The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
Here its the wording of the actual ruling from your link.

Under those circumstances, we are not prepared to hold that the voluntary act of travel to Italy is determinative as a matter of law of the question of voluntariness of appellee's subsequent army service. Rather, the inference to be drawn from the evidence is that appellee did not of his own free will serve in the army of a foreign state. In view of the fact that the Government failed to sustain the burden of proof on either of the two alleged grounds of expatriation, we must conclude that appellee never lost American citizenship.

Where you get the idea that it somehow ruled he was a natural born citizen is beyond me. Maybe you do not understand the difference between dicta and a ruling. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
You may not have noticed, but we have changed a lot of things since "the founders". Their views are not sacrosanct.
:doh

Again. This hasn't changed nor could it without an amendment.
 
ROFL. in the amount of time you've spent typing that we misunderstood you and we should go look at your posts in this very long thread (without telling us which posts) you could have just restated -in summary - the answer to the question.

McCain - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born
Cruz - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born
Obama - eligible/not eligible based on where he was born

They all had at least one parent who was a born and bred US citizen, so that's not a disqualifier
I see you don't get it, and take sides as well.
He wasted his time by not reading what was already provided. His not doing that is the problem.
Asking me to provide it again is a waste of time. And I am not going to do it.

But if you want to help him out, be my guest.
Quote what I said in regards to each of those folks.
All you will be doing is wasting your time for a person who obviously didn't care to read the thread on their own.
Or you could save yourself some time and tell him to read the thread.
Up to you. :shrug:
 
I see you don't get it, and take sides as well.
He wasted his time by not reading what was already provided. His not doing that is the problem.
Asking me to provide it again is a waste of time. And I am not going to do it.

But if you want to help him out, be my guest.
Quote what I said in regards to each of those folks.
All you will be doing is wasting your time for a person who obviously didn't care to read the thread on their own.
Or you could save yourself some time and tell him to read the thread.
Up to you. :shrug:


OR - I could just ignore you. I like that option! You are the one wasting time. If you wanted to present your argument, you would restate in a way that people actually understood, rather than just being upset that we didn't understand you in the first place. You obviously don't care if we understand you; so I don't care either
 
OR - I could just ignore you. I like that option! You are the one wasting time. If you wanted to present your argument, you would restate in a way that people actually understood, rather than just being upset that we didn't understand you in the first place. You obviously don't care if we understand you; so I don't care either

No patty that isn't what happened. The words are clear and he is wasting our time just as you are by taking up his cause.
 
Ok **** it, I'm done with you and your nonsense. Either you don't know, or are hiding something.

No, you just haven't read the thread.
 
That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
That meaning hasn't changed.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has never heard the issue so folks like Obama and possibly Cruz can get away with it.

He was born a US citizen, he didn't immigrate here, apply for citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to become a citizen, he was naturally born a citizen.
 
That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
That meaning hasn't changed.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has never heard the issue so folks like Obama and possibly Cruz can get away with it.
He was born a US citizen, he didn't immigrate here, apply for citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to become a citizen, he was naturally born a citizen.
Oh look. Someone quoted post 9 that I directed another person to read. Go figure.
Cruz was not born here. He was born in Canada. He was a citizen of Canada. That is not a natural born citizen.
 
Last edited:
Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?

It's about 2/3 the way down in the very first post to the thread. Had you read it you'd have known that.

No they did not.
Neither Court made such a ruling.


The Court in Wong only ruled he was a citizen.

The court first defined his citizenship status showing that he was "natural(ly)-born" in America and that he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law. They then upheld his citizenship status.

The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
I reaching this conclusion, wouldn't the court first have to determine whether or not Maenza was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and how said citizenship came to be? This is what the court said on that matter:

There must be more than inference, hypothesis or surmise before a natural-born citizen of the United States can be stripped of his rights and privileges of citizenship and be adjudicated an expatriate.

Therefore, before the court could rule on whether or not Maenza had given up his citizenship status, they had to first determine what type of "citizen" he was - natural-born or naturalized. The court determined that Maenza was, in fact, a "natural-born citizen" and that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship.

Where you get the idea that it somehow ruled he was a natural born citizen is beyond me. Maybe you do not understand the difference between dicta and a ruling. :shrug:

:doh

This is why I didn't want to have this discussion again. Folks like you come in and stick firmly to your definition of what a "natural-born citizen" is and treat such as if it is distinct from being called a "citizen". Truth is, in America being called a "citizen" is synonymous for "natural-born" or "native-born". All this means is "if you are born in the United States you are a 'natural-born' citizen."

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

*Anyone born inside the United States *
*Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
*Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
*Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
*Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
*A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

** There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

The only distinction is if you are naturalized U.S. citizen, i.e., someone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth but applied for U.S. citizenship. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger if you will. It's why he and people like him who applied for U.S. citizenship can never be President. Everyone else who was born here and are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. laws are natural-born U.S. citizens. Ultimately, there was nothing that either Wong Kim Art or Appellee Rosario Maenza had do anything in order to be declared "natural-born U.S. citizens" except be born here.
 
Last edited:
I know, it's not like she meant he was born there.

I've said (prior to that) many times that Ireland is my homeland and I've never been there.
So if someone casually called you an irishman you probably wouldn't take it as a negative.
 
edit: oh hey there 22 pages.
 
In any case, I go back to a few old questions I once asked when this natural-born -vs- citizen issue first came up w/Pres. Obama:

If there is a difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen, what benefits are conferred one over the other?

Is the only difference that being a natural-born citizen can hold the office of PUTUS and a citizen cannot?

And seeing that the term "natural-born" was only once a settled matter in a 1790 law that has long been repealed and replaced by other versions of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization law, does "natural-born" even still apply today?

And if not, should Art. 2 of the U.S. Constitution be amended?
Your questions?
Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?
(BTW, I don't recall ever getting a straight answer to my question(s).)


Great. So where is this question you asked and the answer the person gave?
It's about 2/3 the way down in the very first post to the thread. Had you read it you'd have known that.
No.
I read your postings.
An answer to my questions would have been that you had asked everybody in your opening post.
And then that I would find the answers to it provided in the information the other posters provided.

So thank you for providing the link.
It enabled me to do some further searching and it appears that you just didn't participate in that one thread, but each and every time you did participate your arguments were thoroughly dismantled.
And now you are attempting to make some of the same failed arguments that failed then. That makes no sense.

What is clear from that thread, this one and as well as the others I found, is that you do not understand the information you yourself present and do not learn when you are corrected.


Where you get the idea that it somehow ruled he was a natural born citizen is beyond me. Maybe you do not understand the difference between dicta and a ruling. :shrug:
:doh
This is why I didn't want to have this discussion again. Folks like you come in and stick firmly to your definition of what a "natural-born citizen" is and treat such as if it is distinct from being called a "citizen".
*sigh*
Apparently you suffer from what you accuse others of, as noticed by celticlord in that thread you provided. :shrug:

I do not think that is a bad thing, as person should be confident in their arguments or they shouldn't be making them, except in your case as your arguments are clearly wrong.
 
Last edited:
The court first defined his citizenship status showing that he was "natural(ly)-born" in America and that he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law. They then upheld his citizenship status.
Nowhere in that case did they determine Wong to be a natural born citizen. Nowhere did they define him as a natural born citizen.

They only ruled that he was a citizen. Period.

You clearly do not understand what you present.


The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
I reaching this conclusion, wouldn't the court first have to determine whether or not Maenza was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and how said citizenship came to be?
Oh dear G_d, no!
Did you not read the syllabus?; The background information surrounding the case?

Appellee Rosario Maenza was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on July 29, 1912, the son of alien Italian parents. Under familiar principles of international law and of the municipal law of the United States and of Italy, he possessed dual nationality from time of his birth; he was a citizen of the United States by virtue of nativity in this country, Amendment XIV, § 1, and a subject of the King of Italy because of his Italian parentage.

That is what they recognized.
He was a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment § 1. Which is not by virtue of Article II, § 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

The case was only about whether he lost that acknowledged citizenship.

As I said; You do not understand what you are presenting.
Which just continues in the following.


This is what the court said on that matter:
There must be more than inference, hypothesis or surmise before a natural-born citizen of the United States can be stripped of his rights and privileges of citizenship and be adjudicated an expatriate.
That is mere dicta. It is not a ruling. It is not a holding. It is not authoritative.


Like I said; You do not understand what you are presenting.
You may find it persuasive and appealing, but that isn't how the law works.
It means nothing as they already recognized he was a citizen under the 14th.
And the 14th does not and can not mean the same as Article II, § 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
They are separate and distinct.
To argue that NBC meant the same as the 14th would render the NBC clause without effect and that simply would not be an argument allowed before the Court.


Just above "Page 5 U. S. 175"
5 U.S. 137
Marbury v. Madison


“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. ”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html


Therefore, before the court could rule on whether or not Maenza had given up his citizenship status, they had to first determine what type of "citizen" he was - natural-born or naturalized. The court determined that Maenza was, in fact, a "natural-born citizen" and that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Therefore nothing. The court made no such determination. The court acknowledged that he was a citizen under the 14th. And ruled he did not lose that citizenship. That is all.


The only distinction is if you are naturalized U.S. citizen, i.e., someone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth but applied for U.S. citizenship. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger if you will. It's why he and people like him who applied for U.S. citizenship can never be President. Everyone else who was born here and are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. laws are natural-born U.S. citizens. Ultimately, there was nothing that either Wong Kim Art or Appellee Rosario Maenza had do anything in order to be declared "natural-born U.S. citizens" except be born here.
Wrong all the way around. Neither was declared a natural born citizen.

The 14th determines who is "just" a citizen.
The 14th can not render the NBC clause without effect.
A natural born citizen and that of the 14th are not the same.
Stop making the same failed arguments and learn from your mistakes.
 
Truth is, in America being called a "citizen" is synonymous for "natural-born" or "native-born". All this means is "if you are born in the United States you are a 'natural-born' citizen."
:doh That isn't the truth.
The truth is that 14th and NBC can not mean the same thing.
Period.

As already provided.
The Court in Minor v. Happersett has recognized one category of Citizens of which there can be no doubt of their natural born citizen status.
"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"
They then go on to say;
"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."
They didn't address because it was improper to do so as it was not a question before the Court.
Nor did they have to with the 14th in effect.
The 14th makes those in that group of just born on the soil without regard to their parents citizenship status, citizens.
Again, keep in mind that Marbury v. Madison does not allow for the 14th to render the NBC clause without effect. So the 14th has to be different from the NBC clause.



Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

*Anyone born inside the United States *
*Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
*Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
*Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
*Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
*A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

** There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
And? This is irrelevant and was already trounced in the other thread you participated in.
The 14th doesn't apply to the argument and Statutes can not apply.
As that was pointed out then, what about it did you not understand?

No legislative Law is relevant to this discussion. The Constitution is not beholden to such.

Again. The 14th Amendment is what determines what "just" a citizen is by the Constitution from the date it went into effect.
All other "just" citizens are determined by law.
Neither are natural born citizens as legislation can not determine what a natural born citizen is and the 14th doesn't even address it.
 
So if someone casually called you an irishman you probably wouldn't take it as a negative.

No, but I would correct them.


Actually, maybe I wouldnt. No one's ever called me an Irishman...possibly for obvious reasons.

But I'll say, "oh that's the Irish in me" when I do something rather stereotypical of the Irish. Same with Austrian or German or British.

And I commonly say that I 'dislike the food of my people' (anglo and German/Austrian), discrediting it as boring. LOL
 
Last edited:
No, but I would correct them.


Actually, maybe I wouldnt. No one's ever called me an Irishman...possibly for obvious reasons.

But I'll say, "oh that's the Irish in me" when I do something rather stereotypical of the Irish. Same with Austrian or German or British.

And I commonly say that I 'dislike the food of my people' (anglo and German/Austrian), discrediting it as boring. LOL
My clan's tartan is downright ugly :lol:
 
My clan's tartan is downright ugly :lol:

Just wear the underwear the traditional Scottish male underwear then :shock:

I should have been a Latina or a Thai. I love hot spicy food.

I'm also Scottish and do love scotch however. And Irish whiskey. And German beer. I just said food, not booze, lol.

Oh...and tequila! Viva la differance!
 
Last edited:
It's a very stupid observation. "African Americans" almost all have white blood from their abuse when they were slaves. Few have only African blood.

But the ignorant like to bring it up as if it's relevant. Blacks in this country have had little recourse but to identify with their visible attribute, almost as a defense mechanism...since the minute racist whites saw them THEY immediately declared them 'black', no matter how dark or light.

I find that and the old 'one drop' laws particularly offensive. Traces back to a MASH episode during my childhood I think, when they discussed black people dying because they werent admitted to 'white only' hospitals and were, in that case, not given blood transfusions to save their lives.

Hence the old expression, a "compliment"....you are 'passin', meaning you could pass for white. It always made me sick to my stomach to hear it and read it after that as a kid...and adult.

/rant

Sammy Davis Jr. even though he was a big star had to enter the Casinos he played at through the kitchen because blacks were not allowed to enter the main entrance. In fact I'm not even sure they were allowed at all. He also lost his one eye via a car accident because time was of eccense and the nearest hospital would not treat blacks.

So sad how openly racist this country was not long ago.
 
About as much as I believe "african" americans are actually born in africa. What does Obama's birth place have to do with anything? I'm scottish/german and I wasn't born in scotland or germany. Please stop trying to derail the thread. We have a kenyan in office so it's no big deal if we elect a canadian. A canadian would actually be the better choice since 90% of the canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border anyway and are likely more atune to US politics.

Your ethnic roots have zero to do with being eligible to be president if you are a citizen. Why even mention he has Kenyan blood if it doesn't matter?
 
Back
Top Bottom