Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Canadian Born Ted Cruz Cannot Be President

Thalightguy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 4:21:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The U.S. Constitution requires the President of the United States be a "natural born Citizen".

In matters of citizenship the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress only the "Power To"establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".".

The U.S. Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment. (Congress through legislation cannot add to or take away from who is a "natural born Citizen". )

A Constitutional "natural born Citizen" today is the same as the day the Framers inserted the term into the Constitution. (There has never been an Article V. Amendment to change who can be President.)

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father. He did not inherit his U.S. citizenship from his mother, he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (The naturalization rule that was in effect at the time of his birth)

Ted Cruz is a citizen by naturalization, not a Constitutional "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

If Ted Cruz were a "natural born Citizen" then anyone ever born (since the beginning of the U.S.) with the same birth circumstances as he would also be. This is not the case, prior to 1934 persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. (The Naturalization Rules at that time did not allow for it.)

See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) Syllabus: "Petitioner"s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States."
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:19:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 4:21:20 AM, Thalightguy wrote:
The U.S. Constitution requires the President of the United States be a "natural born Citizen".

In matters of citizenship the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress only the "Power To"establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".".

The U.S. Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment. (Congress through legislation cannot add to or take away from who is a "natural born Citizen". )

A Constitutional "natural born Citizen" today is the same as the day the Framers inserted the term into the Constitution. (There has never been an Article V. Amendment to change who can be President.)

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father. He did not inherit his U.S. citizenship from his mother, he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (The naturalization rule that was in effect at the time of his birth)

Ted Cruz is a citizen by naturalization, not a Constitutional "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

If Ted Cruz were a "natural born Citizen" then anyone ever born (since the beginning of the U.S.) with the same birth circumstances as he would also be. This is not the case, prior to 1934 persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. (The Naturalization Rules at that time did not allow for it.)

See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) Syllabus: "Petitioner"s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States."

Your assertion of what is a "natural-born" citizen is one of many interpretations. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on what the exact definition of "natural-born" exactly means, so it is still left to interpretation. Ted Cruz claims that since his mother was born in Delaware, her citizenship passes onto him at birth. Most legal scholars agree with this statement, so Cruz will be allowed to run for office.

http://www.politifact.com...
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:58:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Cruz is not a liberal, therefore the supreme court will decide that he can not be president.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 3:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:19:07 PM, 58539672 wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:21:20 AM, Thalightguy wrote:
The U.S. Constitution requires the President of the United States be a "natural born Citizen".

In matters of citizenship the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress only the "Power To"establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".".

The U.S. Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment. (Congress through legislation cannot add to or take away from who is a "natural born Citizen". )

A Constitutional "natural born Citizen" today is the same as the day the Framers inserted the term into the Constitution. (There has never been an Article V. Amendment to change who can be President.)

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father. He did not inherit his U.S. citizenship from his mother, he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (The naturalization rule that was in effect at the time of his birth)

Ted Cruz is a citizen by naturalization, not a Constitutional "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

If Ted Cruz were a "natural born Citizen" then anyone ever born (since the beginning of the U.S.) with the same birth circumstances as he would also be. This is not the case, prior to 1934 persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. (The Naturalization Rules at that time did not allow for it.)

See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) Syllabus: "Petitioner"s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States."

Your assertion of what is a "natural-born" citizen is one of many interpretations. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on what the exact definition of "natural-born" exactly means, so it is still left to interpretation. Ted Cruz claims that since his mother was born in Delaware, her citizenship passes onto him at birth. Most legal scholars agree with this statement, so Cruz will be allowed to run for office.

http://www.politifact.com...

Reverse anchor baby.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 3:05:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 2:58:47 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
Cruz is not a liberal, therefore the supreme court will decide that he can not be president.

Lol...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Thalightguy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 3:55:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:19:07 PM, 58539672 wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:21:20 AM, Thalightguy wrote:
The U.S. Constitution requires the President of the United States be a "natural born Citizen".

In matters of citizenship the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress only the "Power To"establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".".

The U.S. Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment. (Congress through legislation cannot add to or take away from who is a "natural born Citizen". )

A Constitutional "natural born Citizen" today is the same as the day the Framers inserted the term into the Constitution. (There has never been an Article V. Amendment to change who can be President.)

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father. He did not inherit his U.S. citizenship from his mother, he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (The naturalization rule that was in effect at the time of his birth)

Ted Cruz is a citizen by naturalization, not a Constitutional "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

If Ted Cruz were a "natural born Citizen" then anyone ever born (since the beginning of the U.S.) with the same birth circumstances as he would also be. This is not the case, prior to 1934 persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. (The Naturalization Rules at that time did not allow for it.)

See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) Syllabus: "Petitioner"s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States."

Your assertion of what is a "natural-born" citizen is one of many interpretations. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on what the exact definition of "natural-born" exactly means, so it is still left to interpretation. Ted Cruz claims that since his mother was born in Delaware, her citizenship passes onto him at birth. Most legal scholars agree with this statement, so Cruz will be allowed to run for office.

http://www.politifact.com...

As far as Ted Cruz is concerned there is nothing to interpret, he's a citizen by naturalization, not a "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

The Frames knew exactly who a "natural born Citizen" was when they inserted the Term into the Constitution; this definition is the same today. (Congress through legislation cannot add to or take away from it; it can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment.)

Ted Cruz's mother did not pass her U.S. citizenship unto him upon his birth; he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling the Naturalization Rules that were in effect at time of his birth. If Congress had not enacted these rules Ted Cruz would not have been born a U.S. citizen. See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, Montana was born in Italy in 1906, and they were both born to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Montana was not born a citizen of the United States (his U.S. citizen mother did not pass her U.S. citizenship onto him upon his birth) because he did not fulfill the Naturalization Rules that were in effect at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen"; if he were, the Supreme Court would have ruled Montana a citizen of the United States. (The definition of a "natural born Citizen" is the same today as the day the Founders inserted the Term into the Constitution, anyone who meets this definition is born a citizen of the United States.)

Again, Congress cannot add to or take away from who is a "natural born Citizen"; they can only Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and starting in 1934 that's exactly what they did when they added the requirements persons like Ted Cruz needed to fulfill to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

Ted Cruz is a citizen by Naturalization, not a "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:11:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fair enough, I suppose.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:12:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At least Ted Cruz has a real birth certificate and admits he's from Calgary.

Barack Hussein Barry Soetoro Obama has provided no real birth certificate and we have no idea where he was born. He spent his childhood in Indonesia and his grandmother said she was there at his birth in Kenya. He spent millions of dollars to seal his other records.

And yet Obama is in the White House. If Obama is eligible, Ted Cruz is even more eligible.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:17:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were "natural born Citizens." The Naturalization Act of 17908" provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
...
Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, 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. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790."

http://harvardlawreview.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Thalightguy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:45:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 4:17:02 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were "natural born Citizens." The Naturalization Act of 17908" provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
...
Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, 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. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790."

http://harvardlawreview.org...

First, the Act of 1790 is a Naturalization Act, it did not and could not add to the definition of a Constitutional "natural born Citizen" (The Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment) the only thing the Act did was give us a Statutory definition of who at that time was considered to be natural born citizens. (Not to be confused with a Constitutional "natural born Citizen")

Second, The Act of 1790 required both parents be U.S. citizens for a person born outside the U.S. to be considered a statutory natural born citizen; but not to a father who had never been a resident of the United States.

Third, Ted Cruz's mother married a foreigner; in 1790, woman who married foreigners took their husbands citizenship. Thus, neither one of Ted Cruz's parents would of been a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.

Fourth, The Act of 1790 is no longer in effect, It was replaced by the Act of 1795 and with it the phrase natural born citizen. The new Act used the phrase "citizen of the United States" as has all other Act's to follow regarding the subject.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:46:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 4:12:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At least Ted Cruz has a real birth certificate and admits he's from Calgary.

Barack Hussein Barry Soetoro Obama has provided no real birth certificate and we have no idea where he was born. He spent his childhood in Indonesia and his grandmother said she was there at his birth in Kenya. He spent millions of dollars to seal his other records.

And yet Obama is in the White House. If Obama is eligible, Ted Cruz is even more eligible.

Insane and hypocritical is a sad way to go through life.
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:03:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As far as Ted Cruz is concerned there is nothing to interpret, he's a citizen by naturalization, not a "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

The Frames knew exactly who a "natural born Citizen" was when they inserted the Term into the Constitution; this definition is the same today. (Congress through legislation cannot add to or take away from it; it can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment.)

Ted Cruz's mother did not pass her U.S. citizenship unto him upon his birth; he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling the Naturalization Rules that were in effect at time of his birth. If Congress had not enacted these rules Ted Cruz would not have been born a U.S. citizen. See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, Montana was born in Italy in 1906, and they were both born to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Montana was not born a citizen of the United States (his U.S. citizen mother did not pass her U.S. citizenship onto him upon his birth) because he did not fulfill the Naturalization Rules that were in effect at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen"; if he were, the Supreme Court would have ruled Montana a citizen of the United States. (The definition of a "natural born Citizen" is the same today as the day the Founders inserted the Term into the Constitution, anyone who meets this definition is born a citizen of the United States.)

Again, Congress cannot add to or take away from who is a "natural born Citizen"; they can only Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and starting in 1934 that's exactly what they did when they added the requirements persons like Ted Cruz needed to fulfill to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

Ted Cruz is a citizen by Naturalization, not a "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

Ted Cruz's claim to natural born citizenship is that the 1790 Naturalization act grants children of US citizens who are born abroad "Natural-Born Citizenship". Most legal scholars today, and in the past agree with this statement. A single US Supreme Court Case, especially one as minor as Montana vs Kennedy, does not constitute an interpretation of the law. It must be brought up several times to the Supreme Court until they decide to make a land mark case about the issue. This hasn't happened, so the constitutionality of Cruz's claim is still valid until the courts address it in a major case.

He is also not the first person to be in this situation. George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney who ran for president as a Republican in 1968, was born in Mexico. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before it was a state. Neither candidate"s campaign was derailed by citizenship challenges. More recently, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faced questions about his eligibility because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there.
Thalightguy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 5:33:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 5:03:16 AM, 58539672 wrote:
As far as Ted Cruz is concerned there is nothing to interpret, he's a citizen by naturalization, not a "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

The Frames knew exactly who a "natural born Citizen" was when they inserted the Term into the Constitution; this definition is the same today. (Congress through legislation cannot add to or take away from it; it can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment.)

Ted Cruz's mother did not pass her U.S. citizenship unto him upon his birth; he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling the Naturalization Rules that were in effect at time of his birth. If Congress had not enacted these rules Ted Cruz would not have been born a U.S. citizen. See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, Montana was born in Italy in 1906, and they were both born to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Montana was not born a citizen of the United States (his U.S. citizen mother did not pass her U.S. citizenship onto him upon his birth) because he did not fulfill the Naturalization Rules that were in effect at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen"; if he were, the Supreme Court would have ruled Montana a citizen of the United States. (The definition of a "natural born Citizen" is the same today as the day the Founders inserted the Term into the Constitution, anyone who meets this definition is born a citizen of the United States.)

Again, Congress cannot add to or take away from who is a "natural born Citizen"; they can only Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and starting in 1934 that's exactly what they did when they added the requirements persons like Ted Cruz needed to fulfill to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

Ted Cruz is a citizen by Naturalization, not a "natural born Citizen" and not eligible to be President.

Ted Cruz's claim to natural born citizenship is that the 1790 Naturalization act grants children of US citizens who are born abroad "Natural-Born Citizenship". Most legal scholars today, and in the past agree with this statement. A single US Supreme Court Case, especially one as minor as Montana vs Kennedy, does not constitute an interpretation of the law. It must be brought up several times to the Supreme Court until they decide to make a land mark case about the issue. This hasn't happened, so the constitutionality of Cruz's claim is still valid until the courts address it in a major case.

He is also not the first person to be in this situation. George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney who ran for president as a Republican in 1968, was born in Mexico. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before it was a state. Neither candidate"s campaign was derailed by citizenship challenges. More recently, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faced questions about his eligibility because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there.

I've already addressed the Act of 1790 (It's a Naturalization Act, it does not and cannot add to or take away from who is a Constitutional "natural born Citizen", the Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment. )

Supreme Court Precedent is Supreme Court Precedent it doesn't matter how big or small someone's view of the case is.

Neither Goldwater or Romney were natural born citizens and neither one of them become President.

McCain was born outside the U.S. to citizen parents who were serving in the defense of the United States. The question is, Was McCain's U.S. citizenship at birth dependent on a Naturalization Act of Congress? If yes, then he's not a "natural born Citizen"; if no, then he is a "natural born Citizen".
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 1:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ted Cruz's claim to natural born citizenship is that the 1790 Naturalization act grants children of US citizens who are born abroad "Natural-Born Citizenship". Most legal scholars today, and in the past agree with this statement. A single US Supreme Court Case, especially one as minor as Montana vs Kennedy, does not constitute an interpretation of the law. It must be brought up several times to the Supreme Court until they decide to make a land mark case about the issue. This hasn't happened, so the constitutionality of Cruz's claim is still valid until the courts address it in a major case.

He is also not the first person to be in this situation. George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney who ran for president as a Republican in 1968, was born in Mexico. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before it was a state. Neither candidate"s campaign was derailed by citizenship challenges. More recently, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faced questions about his eligibility because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there.

I've already addressed the Act of 1790 (It's a Naturalization Act, it does not and cannot add to or take away from who is a Constitutional "natural born Citizen", the Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment. )

Supreme Court Precedent is Supreme Court Precedent it doesn't matter how big or small someone's view of the case is.

Neither Goldwater or Romney were natural born citizens and neither one of them become President.

McCain was born outside the U.S. to citizen parents who were serving in the defense of the United States. The question is, Was McCain's U.S. citizenship at birth dependent on a Naturalization Act of Congress? If yes, then he's not a "natural born Citizen"; if no, then he is a "natural born Citizen".

How big or small the supreme court case is isn't the point, its how many. 23 cases were used to set the precedent on racial equality. 7 cases were used to set the precedent on gender equality. 7 were used to set the precedent for sexual orientation. 8 were used to set the precedent for Abortion. 4 were used to set the precedent for assisted suicide. All SCOTUS precedents were made from the collection of numerous cases related to the topic. This is what is called a "landmark case", a case that, with a collection of previous ones, set a new principle or interpretation of a laws meaning. One case does not constitute an accurate interpretation of the law nor has it ever been used to justify a law. Montana vs Kennedy is not a landmark case, so it sets no new precedent.

Because of this, your interpretation of what is a "natural born citizen" is just that. An Interpretation. Most legal scholars do not agree with you and their are several previous instances of this happening to support Cruz's claim if the Courts ever decide to make a particular case about it.

In other words, Cruz is running for president, and no one is going to stop him.
Thalightguy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 2:21:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 1:50:50 PM, 58539672 wrote:
Ted Cruz's claim to natural born citizenship is that the 1790 Naturalization act grants children of US citizens who are born abroad "Natural-Born Citizenship". Most legal scholars today, and in the past agree with this statement. A single US Supreme Court Case, especially one as minor as Montana vs Kennedy, does not constitute an interpretation of the law. It must be brought up several times to the Supreme Court until they decide to make a land mark case about the issue. This hasn't happened, so the constitutionality of Cruz's claim is still valid until the courts address it in a major case.

He is also not the first person to be in this situation. George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney who ran for president as a Republican in 1968, was born in Mexico. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before it was a state. Neither candidate"s campaign was derailed by citizenship challenges. More recently, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faced questions about his eligibility because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there.

I've already addressed the Act of 1790 (It's a Naturalization Act, it does not and cannot add to or take away from who is a Constitutional "natural born Citizen", the Constitution can only be changed by an Article V. Amendment. )

Supreme Court Precedent is Supreme Court Precedent it doesn't matter how big or small someone's view of the case is.

Neither Goldwater or Romney were natural born citizens and neither one of them become President.

McCain was born outside the U.S. to citizen parents who were serving in the defense of the United States. The question is, Was McCain's U.S. citizenship at birth dependent on a Naturalization Act of Congress? If yes, then he's not a "natural born Citizen"; if no, then he is a "natural born Citizen".

How big or small the supreme court case is isn't the point, its how many. 23 cases were used to set the precedent on racial equality. 7 cases were used to set the precedent on gender equality. 7 were used to set the precedent for sexual orientation. 8 were used to set the precedent for Abortion. 4 were used to set the precedent for assisted suicide. All SCOTUS precedents were made from the collection of numerous cases related to the topic. This is what is called a "landmark case", a case that, with a collection of previous ones, set a new principle or interpretation of a laws meaning. One case does not constitute an accurate interpretation of the law nor has it ever been used to justify a law. Montana vs Kennedy is not a landmark case, so it sets no new precedent.

Because of this, your interpretation of what is a "natural born citizen" is just that. An Interpretation. Most legal scholars do not agree with you and their are several previous instances of this happening to support Cruz's claim if the Courts ever decide to make a particular case about it.

In other words, Cruz is running for president, and no one is going to stop him.

Again, it doesn't matter if it's a landmark case or how many cases led up to it; Precedent is merely the Legal principle, that is created by the Supreme Court's decision, which provides an example or authority for deciding similar issues later.

But, If more Precedent on the subject is needed, then here you go. See: United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971); Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) "Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned."

Canadian born Ted Cruz is a citizen by Naturalization, not a Constitutional "natural born Citizen" and cannot be President.