• 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

tres borrachos said:
They're called "Birthers". From the Hillary supporters who started it to Donald Trump who continued it to the people who are trying to use it against Cruz. Indicative of what's wrong in this country.
Click to expand...

Well then, I guess they get a C for consistency. Who is this group politically then, independents?
 
Excon said:
Once one understands that the Constitution is not beholden to any Statute they should then know that no law has any authority in this argument.

...

The only thing that matters is what the Founders meant by natural born citizen.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, why did Congress pass the Nationalization Act of 1790, the only U.S. law to ever define who was a natural-born citizen? Furthermore, why then did the law declare that children born abroad to "a free white man who was not a diplomat" were also natural-born U.S. citizens? Clearly, the Congress of the day were keenly aware of the possibility that an American male could travel abroad, impregnate a foreign female (mistress), and said (male) child would likely become his heir. So, they came up with a convenient caveat to the natural-born citizenship equation: no descendants of diplomats or royalty could ever become POTUS.

Now, I get that "natural-born" by law was replaced with "citizen". I also understand how the Founding Fathers interpreted the term "natural-born" to mean under English common-law. But since 1795, the term "natural-born" has never formally been defined to mean anything other than "citizen." Therefore, it stands to reason that all individuals born:

- on U.S. soil; or,
- in U.S. territory,

...to at least one U.S. citizen parent is a natural-born citizen. If you disagree, should the term truly be done away with since it's meaning officially changed in 1795?

Both our court system and INA law make it clear that if one's U.S. citizenship has to be bestowed upon a person via an application process, that individual clearly was not "naturally born" in this country. He/she had to do something in order to be granted citizenship. In converse, if you do something to have your U.S. citizenship removed (i.e., renounce or volunteer to join a foreign military), you forfeit your citizenship rights, natural-born or otherwise.

The only distinction between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" is the place where you were born and to whom. You were either born here or in a U.S. territory to at least one U.S. citizen parent or you weren't. You're either a citizen, natural-born, a naturalized citizen (through process) or you're a national (someone born in a U.S. territory to non-U.S. citizen parents). That's it!

Willing? No. You will be resigned to accede to their decision as legal authority on the issue, just as everyone else would.
Click to expand...

However way you wish to interpret my adherence with the law, be my guest. Doesn't change the fact that until either the Supreme Court or Congress clearly defines the natural-born citizen equation, I'll continue to follow INA law and not yours or anyone else's opinion of who is or is not a U.S. citizen, natural-born or otherwise.

Excon said:
:doh

The Constitutional requirement that one be a "natural born citizen" is not a theory.
That the Constitution is not beholden to any law, is not a theory.
That the Supreme Court already recognized two categories of those who may be natural born citizens is not a theory. That one of those categories is covered by the 14th (Amendment) is not a theory.
A clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect by another, is not a theory. Thus the natural born citizenship clause must mean something beside what is covered by the 14th is not a theory.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, what part of the 14th Amendment categorizes a "natural-born" citizen?
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
If that's the case,
Click to expand...
If? No it is the case. End of story. Bringing it up is irrelevant.
The Constitution is not subordinate or beholden to any law. Period.

[highlight]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.[/highlight]


Objective Voice said:
why did Congress pass the Nationalization Act of 1790,
Click to expand...
Besides it not being relevant, the actual question should be why was it removed if it was intended? If it had been intended it would not have been removed.
Like today, Congress passes things where they are not fully aware of the consequences of, and at times, not fully aware of the wording until after it has been enacted.

The fact is that they changed the language for a reason. And never put it back in there.


Objective Voice said:
the only U.S. law to ever define who was a natural-born citizen?
Click to expand...
Besides it not being relevant, it did not define it for Constitutional purposes. The crap you were quoting in the other threads conveniently pointed that out to you.


Objective Voice said:
Furthermore, why then did the law declare that children born abroad to "a free white man who was not a diplomat" were also natural-born U.S. citizens? Clearly, the Congress of the day were keenly aware of the possibility that an American male could travel abroad, impregnate a foreign female (mistress), and said (male) child would likely become his heir. So, they came up with a convenient caveat to the natural-born citizenship equation: no descendants of diplomats or royalty could ever become POTUS.
Click to expand...
Still irrelevant. It was changed and did not define or supersede the Constitutional requirement.


Objective Voice said:
I also understand how the Founding Fathers interpreted the term "natural-born" to mean under English common-law.
Click to expand...
Not entirely correct. English common law is a last resort. You seem to forget that even though many of the laws of the time were based on English common law, we were no longer English Colonies and their laws were not in effect. Our common laws were.
If the Court could find no available meaning from our shores then, and only then, would they turn to English common law.
Regardless, the court has already recognized what the term could mean.

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.​

The above is the Court stating exactly that there is no doubt this group fits the meaning of natural born citizen within the common law and nomenclature of the time of that which our Founders were familiar with.
The Court then goes on to state that there is a second class that some authorities suggest would also fall under the natural born citizen definition which there is doubt that they do.

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.​

That is the nbc argument as defined by the common law and nomenclature of the time as recognized by the court.
Being on soil is not in question, parental citizenship is.

The above as recognized by the court follows what has been provided by Vattel and the letter to Washington by John Jay.
And the wording being adopted after the letter was sent to Washington is a strong indication that it was meant to eliminate the chance of those born with foreign allegiances from holding the office.

Continues on next page.
 
Objective Voice said:
But since 1795, the term "natural-born" has never formally been defined to mean anything other than "citizen." Therefore, it stands to reason that all individuals born:

- on U.S. soil; or,
- in U.S. territory,

...to at least one U.S. citizen parent is a natural-born citizen. If you disagree, should the term truly be done away with since it's meaning officially changed in 1795?
Click to expand...
No it does not stand to reason. That is illogical. The founders knew what it meant.
And no, what was meant by the Constitution was not officially changed. A statute has no control over what is meant by a Constitutional clause.
Period.
The only question is what the founders meant by it. The Court in Minor v. Happersett clearly indicated that only two classes were considered. One with "no doubt" and the other having doubts.


Objective Voice said:
Both our court system and INA law make it clear that if one's U.S. citizenship has to be bestowed upon a person via an application process, that individual clearly was not "naturally born" in this country. He/she had to do something in order to be granted citizenship. In converse, if you do something to have your U.S. citizenship removed (i.e., renounce or volunteer to join a foreign military), you forfeit your citizenship rights, natural-born or otherwise.

The only distinction between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" is the place where you were born and to whom. You were either born here or in a U.S. territory to at least one U.S. citizen parent or you weren't. You're either a citizen, natural-born, a naturalized citizen (through process) or you're a national (someone born in a U.S. territory to non-U.S. citizen parents). That's it!
Click to expand...
:doh No that is not it.
The court system has not, and the INS is irrelevant to this discussion.
The only thing relevant is what the founders intended by the clause.


Objective Voice said:
I'll continue to follow INA law
Click to expand...
Of course you will, because you do not understand that the Constitution is not beholden to a statute. That was something you should have learned years ago, and is something that the information you provided even tells you.

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.
That is your fault for not learning.


Objective Voice said:
In your opinion, what part of the 14th Amendment categorizes a "natural-born" citizen?
Click to expand...
:doh
Never said it did.
This is you not understanding what was said.

The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett recognized two classes of citizen birth, one that is without a doubt naturally born, the other having doubts if it is.
They wouldn't and couldn't go further to settle the issue as it was not before the Court for consideration.
The class that has doubts as to whether they are naturally born citizens, is covered by the 14th Amendment as simply "citizens".
So of the two recognized by the court, the only one left as natural born citizens are those born of US citizen parents on US soil, as the other is covered by the 14th.



Look. I am not forcing you to engage in this debate.
If you do not like having to deal with lengthy replies or rehashing what you think you already hashed, then stop replying.
It is that simple.
 
Excon said:
Look. I am not forcing you to engage in this debate.
If you do not like having to deal with lengthy replies or rehashing what you think you already hashed, then stop replying.
It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll bow out of the conversation but not before leaving you with this lengthy study entitled, "Presidential Eligibility", conducted by the Constitution Society, an organization whose summary findings on the matter of "natural-born citizenship" I'm sure you'd find most enlightening considering the fact that you're such a strict constitutionalist. I'd quote their findings here, but why deprive you of learning something.
 
Objective Voice said:
Sure, I'll bow out of the conversation but not before leaving you with this lengthy study entitled, "Presidential Eligibility", conducted by the Constitution Society, an organization whose summary findings on the matter of "natural-born citizenship" I'm sure you'd find most enlightening considering the fact that you're such a strict constitutionalist. I'd quote their findings here, but why deprive you of learning something.
Click to expand...
:doh
You never learn.
1. That is not bowing out. That is again you avoiding answering. :doh

2. There you go providing something that is irrelevant.
It's not even authoritative.

You were already shown that the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett recognized two classes of citizen birth, one that is without a doubt naturally born, the other having doubts if it is.
They wouldn't and couldn't go further to settle the issue as it was not before the Court for consideration.
The class that has doubts as to whether they are naturally born citizens, is covered by the 14th Amendment as simply "citizens".
So of the two recognized by the court, the only one left as natural born citizens are those born of US citizen parents on US soil, as the other is covered by the 14th.

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.
That is your fault for not learning.
 
Excon said:
:doh
You never learn.
1. That is not bowing out. That is again you avoiding answering. :doh

2. There you go providing something that is irrelevant.
It's not even authoritative.

You were already shown that the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett recognized two classes of citizen birth, one that is without a doubt naturally born, the other having doubts if it is.
They wouldn't and couldn't go further to settle the issue as it was not before the Court for consideration.
The class that has doubts as to whether they are naturally born citizens, is covered by the 14th Amendment as simply "citizens".
So of the two recognized by the court, the only one left as natural born citizens are those born of US citizen parents on US soil, as the other is covered by the 14th.

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.
That is your fault for not learning.
Click to expand...

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?

Let's start from a place we both can agree on and go from there, shall we?

We both agree that Sen. Ted Cruz does not meet the "natural-born citizen" eligibility requirement to be POTUS. He wasn't born in the U.S. That alone disqualifies him.

Let us also agree that there are, in fact, two classes of "citizens" in the U.S.: Natural-born and citizen.

Now, let's deal with the "citizen" issue first.

In order to be declared a U.S. "citizen", your place of birth and who you were born to are the two key pieces to qualify. Such questions pertaining to one's birth need only come up IF the child were born abroad - outside the continental U.S. and its territories - or if he or she were a foreigner and wished to apply for U.S. citizenship. If born abroad, (at a minimum) you'd have to provide proof that at least one of your parents was, in fact, a U.S. citizen either "natural-born" or "naturalized". The other way to become a U.S. citizen is to go through the naturalization (application) process and become a naturalized citizen. This, in part, is what you've continuously referred to when you address "statutory" citizenship which is covered by current INA law. INA law also helps to determine who is a citizen at birth through parentage for those children born abroad. However, I disagree with your interpretation on who at birth is considered to be a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.

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. (Justone...is that really you? ;) ) 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.

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:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.
Click to expand...

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

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
Click to expand...

(Continued in next post...)
 
Last edited:
(Continued from post #284...)

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. To that, let's now turn not inaccurately to Vattle but to William Blackstone and see what he had to say about it. From his literary work, "Commentaries on the Laws of England":

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
Click to expand...

"Born within the dominion(s)...allegiance". Sounds to me like Blackstone was basically saying, "if you are born to the soil of a country you are a natural-born citizen of that country" with natural allegiance to that country subject to its laws. And it makes sense!

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! 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. Of course, I would prefer that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen, but that's not how our Founding Fathers saw it. And neither should you. But until the Supreme Court rules on the matter, I'm perfectly fine with following INA to determine the U.S. citizenship equation, natural-born or just plain old citizen.
 
Objective Voice said:
We both agree that Sen. Ted Cruz does not meet the "natural-born citizen" eligibility requirement to be POTUS. He wasn't born in the U.S. That alone disqualifies him.
)
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Just because your parents happened to not be in the US when you were born, doesn't make you not a natural born citizen (in my opinion- we'll have to let the courts fight it out, of course). What if my parents were on vacation in England when I was born? I'm not a natural born citizen?

I think if you were born to US parents - or if you were born in the USA - you are a citizen and a natural born citizen. I don't think the dirt underneath your birth site disqualifies you.

I know you and Excon both disagree. Like I said, it will be up to the courts. But there are lots better reasons to hope Cruz never becomes president.
 
paddymcdougall said:
I disagree with this. Just because your parents happened to not be in the US when you were born, doesn't make you not a natural born citizen (in my opinion- we'll have to let the courts fight it out, of course). What if my parents were on vacation in England when I was born? I'm not a natural born citizen?

I think if you were born to US parents - or if you were born in the USA - you are a citizen and a natural born citizen. I don't think the dirt underneath your birth site disqualifies you.

I know you and Excon both disagree. Like I said, it will be up to the courts. But there are lots better reasons to hope Cruz never becomes president.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you that it's unfair not to classify children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents as "natural-born" particularly under the scenario as you've described especially in this day and age, I can understand why the Founding Fathers insisted on such per Art II, Sect. 1 of the Constitution and why the "natural-born" qualifier was removed from the Naturalization Act of 1795.

The presumption then (as it is now) is that those who are born "to the soil" will always remain loyal to the land of their birth. But occasionally, there are those odd ball situations, such as Sen. McCain's birth to two U.S. citizen parents in the Panama Canal Zone, that makes you scratch your head. You'd think he'd qualify, but the true understanding as to what defines one as "natural-born" works against him because he was born over there as opposed to right here.

It sucks particularly for those folks who just so happen to depart the U.S. to travel abroad and end up having their child over seas. They return state-side only to learn that all the time they'd said to Little Johnny "one day you can grow up to be President of the United States" they were espousing a lie because their child was born over there despite the fact that his/her parents are citizens themselves. If anything, the "2 parent rule" under Vattle should apply here and such children born abroad should be deemed "natural-born" as opposed to just plain "citizen". Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be how it works.

Born to the soil is the predominate factor for "natural-born" citizenship and, thus, a path to the White House. Those who disagree...we'll just have to wait until the Supreme Court or the next Constitutional Convention resolves the matter. :shrug:
 
Objective Voice said:
While I agree with you that it's unfair not to classify children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents as "natural-born" particularly under the scenario as you've described especially in this day and age, I can understand why the Founding Fathers insisted on such per Art II, Sect. 1 of the Constitution and why the "natural-born" qualifier was removed from the Naturalization Act of 1795.

The presumption then (as it is now) is that those who are born "to the soil" will always remain loyal to the land of their birth. But occasionally, there are those odd ball situations, such as Sen. McCain's birth to two U.S. citizen parents in the Panama Canal Zone, that makes you scratch your head. You'd think he'd qualify, but the true understanding as to what defines one as "natural-born" works against him because he was born over there as opposed to right here.

It sucks particularly for those folks who just so happen to depart the U.S. to travel abroad and end up having their child over seas. They return state-side only to learn that all the time they'd said to Little Johnny "one day you can grow up to be President of the United States" they were espousing a lie because their child was born over there despite the fact that his/her parents are citizens themselves. If anything, the "2 parent rule" under Vattle should apply here and such children born abroad should be deemed "natural-born" as opposed to just plain "citizen". Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be how it works.

Born to the soil is the predominate factor for "natural-born" citizenship and, thus, a path to the White House. Those who disagree...we'll just have to wait until the Supreme Court or the next Constitutional Convention resolves the matter. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It is much more likely that a person will remain loyal to the country their parents consider themselves citizens or that their parents are working to be citizens of (their parents are loyal to) than to where they were born. Would we assume that a child born to parents traveling to sightsee in China would be more loyal to China than America, the country their parents are from and possess loyalty to?

There is no valid reason that "soil" should be above "parentage" when it comes to natural born. Where your parents' loyalty lies is a much better indicator of country loyalty the child will grow to have than the soil they are born on, and I can't see that the founding fathers would actually not see this.
 
roguenuke said:
It is much more likely that a person will remain loyal to the country their parents consider themselves citizens or that their parents are working to be citizens of (their parents are loyal to) than to where they were born.
Click to expand...

Right! Hence, the reason our Founding Fathers considered "natural-born" citizens to be the primary requisition for the office of the presidency. Certainly if the parents remained loyal subjects to the land where they reside the obvious conclusion one could reach is that the child would also remain loyal. Of course, there have been traitors in our midst before from Benedict Arnold to (presumably) Edward Snowden (verdict is still out), but few citizens who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the place where they were born have ever turned their back on their beloved country.

Would we assume that a child born to parents traveling to sight-see in China would be more loyal to China than America, the country their parents are from and possess loyalty to?
Click to expand...

You espouse a very simplistic notion here. Nonetheless, the answer is no. One would not expect that any child born in a foreign land who resides their but briefly would have allegiance to said country. This would likely explain why our Constitution has a 14 years residence provision for anyone seeking the office of the President of the United States.

There is no valid reason that "soil" should be above "parentage" when it comes to natural born. Where your parents' loyalty lies is a much better indicator of country loyalty the child will grow to have than the soil they are born on, and I can't see that the founding fathers would actually not see this.
Click to expand...

History actually proves you wrong here. However, that's not to say that parents don't have significant influence over their child's attitudes toward cultural or social behavior or even political views. Quite the contrary. In the natural order of things, it makes more sense that the longer you reside in a place, the more you embody the ideals and values of said place. Thus, being born to the soil can be a stronger force of will than who your parents are. Consider this: How many people do you know who were born in America seek to leave this country on a permanent basis versus those who'd just like to travel abroad on a temporary basis (i.e., vacation) and return home? I'm willing to bet not many. By the same token people may claim to hate government, but they'd much rather just "deal with it" than cast their vote to affect change. And when they do vote, we're all very willing to wait things out and see if change ever comes, if things ever get better. But pack up and leave is something we rarely, if ever, do.
 
Objective Voice said:
Right! Hence, the reason our Founding Fathers considered "natural-born" citizens to be the primary requisition for the office of the presidency. Certainly if the parents remained loyal subjects to the land where they reside the obvious conclusion one could reach is that the child would also remain loyal. Of course, there have been traitors in our midst before from Benedict Arnold to (presumably) Edward Snowden (verdict is still out), but few citizens who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the place where they were born have ever turned their back on their beloved country.

You espouse a very simplistic notion here. Nonetheless, the answer is no. One would not expect that any child born in a foreign land who resides their but briefly would have allegiance to said country. This would likely explain why our Constitution has a 14 years residence provision for anyone seeking the office of the President of the United States.

History actually proves you wrong here. However, that's not to say that parents don't have significant influence over their child's attitudes toward cultural or social behavior or even political views. Quite the contrary. In the natural order of things, it makes more sense that the longer you reside in a place, the more you embody the ideals and values of said place. Thus, being born to the soil can be a stronger force of will than who your parents are. Consider this: How many people do you know who were born in America seek to leave this country on a permanent basis versus those who'd just like to travel abroad on a temporary basis (i.e., vacation) and return home? I'm willing to bet not many. By the same token people may claim to hate government, but they'd much rather just "deal with it" than cast their vote to affect change. And when they do vote, we're all very willing to wait things out and see if change ever comes, if things ever get better. But pack up and leave is something we rarely, if ever, do.
Click to expand...

Most of us have our families here though, so your question is pretty much pointless in the discussion as to whether loyalty to family/parents/loved ones is more important than loyalty to soil. Although loyalty can change as we grow older, due to our experiences and gaining knowledge, the loyalty is still not generally to the "soil" itself (except for those who are taught that) but rather to their families, their history, their loved ones, the familiarity, or even the ideals that a person agrees with. There are people who are taught by their families and those they grow up around that loyalty should be to their country, to that soil. But there are more of us who are taught that the loyalty should be to the ideals of our country, not to the soil itself, or to our families. Loyalty to family or ideals is much more powerful than loyalty to soil. Just look at the migrations of people to different parts of our own country, different states. Although there are plenty of people who stay for generation after generation in the same state, there are many more who easily give up that "loyalty" to the soil where they were born just to seek better opportunities in other states or because they prefer other states.

Now, growing up in an area may give a person a certain sense of loyalty to that area, but not simply being born there. And that sense of loyalty is not normally going to outweigh our sense of loyalty to other things.
 
Objective Voice said:
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?
Click to expand...
:doh
You are the one that needs to get off their horse and realize your argument is not accurate.


Objective Voice said:
Let's start from a place we both can agree on and go from there, shall we?
Click to expand...
Wtf do you think I have been trying to get you to do?

Again:
[highlight]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.[/highlight]

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.


Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
Misstating. That is two citizen parents on US soil.


Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem is you that you are wrong and are now mixing two different things.
They did not misstate Vattels's work.


Objective Voice said:
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:
Click to expand...
:doh
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.​


Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just stop. You have already been told that is not accurate.


Objective Voice said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.


Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


Objective Voice said:
I'm perfectly fine with following INA to determine the U.S. citizenship equation, natural-born or just plain old citizen.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
chad1389 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, you already said this same nonsense. D'oh! :doh
Again demonstrating that you do not understand that the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen is not, and can not be, beholden to such . :doh
Just as you apparently do not understand that a constitutional clause can not be left without effect by another.


Objective Voice said:
I think the rulings from these two lower court cases, Look Tin Sing and Daiz-Salazar, would suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
1. This is lazy. You just say; {Here, here are two cases.} :doh 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.


Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
chad1389 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That certainly makes sense to me and seems legitimate. But it would almost certainly be contested.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
First off Obama was born in Hawaii so he should've gotten no flack at all.
Click to expand...
No, he should have received flak and been disqualified for having been born with foreign allegiances.


EMNofSeattle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Under your pretense, she did not meet the criteria and he then should have been disqualified.


EMNofSeattle said:
If Ted Cruz were born in canada and his mother had never lived in the US since 14 he would not be a citizen
Click to expand...
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.
 
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
joG said:
What do you like about him?
Click to expand...
Mostly his insistence on adhering to the Constitution.

Ted Cruz on the Issues

s010_090.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom