Ted Cruz:Thought Canadian Birth 'Didn't Matter'
- Thread starter Roger35
- Start date
paso
"The phrase "natural born citizen" means what the Supreme Court decides it means."
I know there have been SCOTUS cases which do refer to natural born. I thought in some if not all of those cases natural born was said to mean born on US soil to US parents.
if that is the case then Cruz is not eligible but then neither is BO and yet BO is the POTUS now in his 5th year.
That is what I meant when I said that ship had sailed.
The previous supreme cases with their definitions of natural born were ignored in 08.
"The phrase "natural born citizen" means what the Supreme Court decides it means."
I know there have been SCOTUS cases which do refer to natural born. I thought in some if not all of those cases natural born was said to mean born on US soil to US parents.
if that is the case then Cruz is not eligible but then neither is BO and yet BO is the POTUS now in his 5th year.
That is what I meant when I said that ship had sailed.
The previous supreme cases with their definitions of natural born were ignored in 08.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Obama was born on US soil. McCain actually was also since he was born in the Canal Zone not Panama.
I do not care about this "controversy" but Cruz has a weaker case.
I am also relatively certain that the Supreme Court has never expressly decided what "natural born citizen" means. It seems reasonable to me that it means your parents or parent are American citizens but it also seems reasonable that it means you were born here. The plain language is somewhat ambiguous on this.
I think the original intent was probably that someone be born here because travel was much less prevalent and the concern would be to not let immigrants particularly from England become President.
I have never examined the case law and other than its entertainment value (laughing at the birthers spin 180 degrees) I could care less. Cruz has only a slightly better chance of being elected President than I do.
I do not care about this "controversy" but Cruz has a weaker case.
I am also relatively certain that the Supreme Court has never expressly decided what "natural born citizen" means. It seems reasonable to me that it means your parents or parent are American citizens but it also seems reasonable that it means you were born here. The plain language is somewhat ambiguous on this.
I think the original intent was probably that someone be born here because travel was much less prevalent and the concern would be to not let immigrants particularly from England become President.
I have never examined the case law and other than its entertainment value (laughing at the birthers spin 180 degrees) I could care less. Cruz has only a slightly better chance of being elected President than I do.
accuratehorn
10,000+ Posts
OK Horn6721, Why are Cruz and Obama both not eligible under the "natural born" wording of the U.S. Constitution?
I would like an explanation. Is Hawaii part of Asia, or Africa, now, in your book of "facts?"
The current "natural born" criteria include people like Cruz, but is that what the framers of the Constitution intended, and would that be how the Supremes would rule if it were challenged? It certainly could be ruled otherwise, if they wanted.
I would like an explanation. Is Hawaii part of Asia, or Africa, now, in your book of "facts?"
The current "natural born" criteria include people like Cruz, but is that what the framers of the Constitution intended, and would that be how the Supremes would rule if it were challenged? It certainly could be ruled otherwise, if they wanted.
the closest I have seen to a definition of natural born in a legal sense comes from the supremes in their decision in MINOR V. HAPPERSETT The issue in the supremes opinion was not the 14th amendmet regarding her citizenship but article1 section 1
but I am NO expert
it just seems that if BO is considered ' natural born for purposes of being eligible to be POTUS then Cruz would also.
Frankly I think neither are" natural born" but once the ship sails you can't call it back if you don't like the next candidate .
" The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“
There is now a precedent and it can't be erased.
Notice the use of the word PARENTS
plural
neither BO or Cruz were born to PARENTS who were USA citizens.
But BO is POTUS
but I am NO expert
it just seems that if BO is considered ' natural born for purposes of being eligible to be POTUS then Cruz would also.
Frankly I think neither are" natural born" but once the ship sails you can't call it back if you don't like the next candidate .
" The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“
There is now a precedent and it can't be erased.
Notice the use of the word PARENTS
plural
neither BO or Cruz were born to PARENTS who were USA citizens.
But BO is POTUS
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Actually, being born in the US means you are a US citizen period. Where your parents were born is irrelevant.
There are people who want to change this, but this is not the current state of the law.
Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen of the US.
Cruz was born in Canada.
There are people who want to change this, but this is not the current state of the law.
Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen of the US.
Cruz was born in Canada.
accuratehorn
10,000+ Posts
Yes, on what basis is Horn6721 claiming Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen? Are you really saying it is because one of his parents was not born in the U.S.?
If so, how is not Cruz's Cuban father a factor?
I am only claiming that the phrase natural born could reasonably be inferred to mean born in the U.S.A. I don't claim that current interpretation of the phrase would deny eligibility to Cruz.
If so, how is not Cruz's Cuban father a factor?
I am only claiming that the phrase natural born could reasonably be inferred to mean born in the U.S.A. I don't claim that current interpretation of the phrase would deny eligibility to Cruz.
accuratehorn
10,000+ Posts
It is intuitively obvious, as they say in math class, that natural born means born in the United States. Our law agrees that any person born in the United States is a citizen.
To establish requirements for running for president, policy makers set long-standing rules for eligibility for those born outside the United States, and Cruz is eligible under those rules. But no one needs an additional rule if they are born in the United States (of course the Constitution states you must be over 35 and have lived 14 years in the United States).
So now, finally, why are you saying Obama is ineligible to be president under the natural born clause of the Constitution of the United States?
To establish requirements for running for president, policy makers set long-standing rules for eligibility for those born outside the United States, and Cruz is eligible under those rules. But no one needs an additional rule if they are born in the United States (of course the Constitution states you must be over 35 and have lived 14 years in the United States).
So now, finally, why are you saying Obama is ineligible to be president under the natural born clause of the Constitution of the United States?
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Actually, accurate asked you first.
And I am totally befuddled by your question to me because it makes no sense to me.
Obama was born in the US. Anyone born in the US is a citizen at birth. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
How could he not be a natural born citizen?
While the Supreme Court has not opined on what the phrase means in the context of the President, Obama summarily won challenges to his candidacy at the district court (and perhaps the circuit court) levels.
This actually does not decide the issue for Cruz though.
And I am totally befuddled by your question to me because it makes no sense to me.
Obama was born in the US. Anyone born in the US is a citizen at birth. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
How could he not be a natural born citizen?
While the Supreme Court has not opined on what the phrase means in the context of the President, Obama summarily won challenges to his candidacy at the district court (and perhaps the circuit court) levels.
This actually does not decide the issue for Cruz though.
paso
You cite a supreme court case andclude the quote of the Supremes that being born in USA is a citizen at birth. However it does not say one is ' Natural Born?
You know full well the discussions and opinions offered by the supremes and others on exactly what the framers meant.
In fact in one SCOTUS case doesn't one of the supremes opine that one has to go back to the context of the time when the Constitution was written? And in that SCOTUS case isn't it mentioned that in the context of the time natural born meant born of CITIZEN PARENTS IN THE USA?
You cite a supreme court case andclude the quote of the Supremes that being born in USA is a citizen at birth. However it does not say one is ' Natural Born?
You know full well the discussions and opinions offered by the supremes and others on exactly what the framers meant.
In fact in one SCOTUS case doesn't one of the supremes opine that one has to go back to the context of the time when the Constitution was written? And in that SCOTUS case isn't it mentioned that in the context of the time natural born meant born of CITIZEN PARENTS IN THE USA?
Horn6721,
Unless you dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no issue of his being a natural born citizen. That issue was resolved fully by the 14th Amendment, which made all persons born in the United States U.S. citizens at birth. It wouldn't matter if his parents were two gay illegal aliens serving life sentences in prison at the time he was born. He would still be a natural born citizen, by being born in the United States.
Unless you dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no issue of his being a natural born citizen. That issue was resolved fully by the 14th Amendment, which made all persons born in the United States U.S. citizens at birth. It wouldn't matter if his parents were two gay illegal aliens serving life sentences in prison at the time he was born. He would still be a natural born citizen, by being born in the United States.
I think all the birther talk is complete nonsense.
However, I thought the issue with BO was that some of his bios said he was born in Kenya and there is speculation that he listed Kenya as his birth place to gain advantage in college and/or financial aid for school .
of course the issue is stupid for BO and equally stupid for Cruz.
Also, typical misleading headline by the OP.
However, I thought the issue with BO was that some of his bios said he was born in Kenya and there is speculation that he listed Kenya as his birth place to gain advantage in college and/or financial aid for school .
of course the issue is stupid for BO and equally stupid for Cruz.
Also, typical misleading headline by the OP.
mrD
all due respect but being a citizen at birth has NOT legally that I know of meant natural born in the sense the framers, at least according to some Supremes, meant,
In fact in one SCOTUS case isn't it specifically mentioned that the 14th does settle address natural born?
Perhaps we should get Congress to send an amendment to the states for a vote that settles this
but for now there is no agreement on the intention of the framers.
all due respect but being a citizen at birth has NOT legally that I know of meant natural born in the sense the framers, at least according to some Supremes, meant,
In fact in one SCOTUS case isn't it specifically mentioned that the 14th does settle address natural born?
Perhaps we should get Congress to send an amendment to the states for a vote that settles this
but for now there is no agreement on the intention of the framers.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Do you have an actual case to cite?
And maybe you could step back and actually think about what you are saying. It is completely and utterly settled by the Supreme Court and 14th Amendment (which came after the Civil War) that being born in the US means you are a US citizen. This is called birthright citizenship (and lots of other countries do not have it).
In order to be President, the Constitution indicates that you must be a naturally born citizen. How on earth could anyone actually born in the United States not qualify? What bizarre strained "logic" do you need to go through to decide that someone who is an American citizen at birth is not a naturally born citizen?
This is goofy as hell.
And maybe you could step back and actually think about what you are saying. It is completely and utterly settled by the Supreme Court and 14th Amendment (which came after the Civil War) that being born in the US means you are a US citizen. This is called birthright citizenship (and lots of other countries do not have it).
In order to be President, the Constitution indicates that you must be a naturally born citizen. How on earth could anyone actually born in the United States not qualify? What bizarre strained "logic" do you need to go through to decide that someone who is an American citizen at birth is not a naturally born citizen?
This is goofy as hell.
mrD I would like very much if you would sort this out. As I have said I am pretty ignorant on how the supremes rule> In research on supreme court/ natural born I have found cases that had citizenship at issue but never natural born.
However in those cases it seems the Supremes at the time usually mentioned natural born as being born of 2 parents who were citizens of the USA
versus their opinion that anyone born in the usa was a citizen.
It is possible I am not reading it correctly and I know you can.
for instance
this from Minor v. Happersett
"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. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which paso quoted and which also involved the 14th amendment Justice Gray wrote the court opinion and cited the Minor decision::
"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.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
( I bolded the last sentence)
No one including me has said a person born in the USA is not a citizen. There is a difference in many minds including some supremes between a citizen and Natural Born .
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other
category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens also of USA
However in those cases it seems the Supremes at the time usually mentioned natural born as being born of 2 parents who were citizens of the USA
versus their opinion that anyone born in the usa was a citizen.
It is possible I am not reading it correctly and I know you can.
for instance
this from Minor v. Happersett
"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. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which paso quoted and which also involved the 14th amendment Justice Gray wrote the court opinion and cited the Minor decision::
"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.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
( I bolded the last sentence)
No one including me has said a person born in the USA is not a citizen. There is a difference in many minds including some supremes between a citizen and Natural Born .
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other
category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens also of USA
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
You completely air mail the holding in Wong Kim Ark probably because you are cutting and pasting some gibberish from a birther website. You do not take stray quotes and cobble together a legal argument. You take the actual facts of a case together with what it decided.
In Wong Kim Ark, the two parents were Chinese nationals. Their child was born in the US. Their child was held to be a US citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. The key part of the amendment reads:
In Wong Kim Ark, the two parents were Chinese nationals. Their child was born in the US. Their child was held to be a US citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. The key part of the amendment reads:
paso?
Show me where I EVER said a person born in the US was NOT a citizen?
You know perfectly well I have never written that.
cmt
if the question is is someone born in the USA a citizen, YES as I have posted over and over
paso
If YOU can cite in any supreme court decision that NATURAL BORN citizens as described in the Constitution can be anyone born in the USA and not one born of 2 parents who are also US citizens please do
natural born citizens are citizens born in USA to 2 parents who are also US citizens.
Show me where I EVER said a person born in the US was NOT a citizen?
You know perfectly well I have never written that.
cmt
if the question is is someone born in the USA a citizen, YES as I have posted over and over
paso
If YOU can cite in any supreme court decision that NATURAL BORN citizens as described in the Constitution can be anyone born in the USA and not one born of 2 parents who are also US citizens please do
natural born citizens are citizens born in USA to 2 parents who are also US citizens.
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 798
- West Mall
-
Rosie O'Donald Leaves America for Ireland
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 13
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 613
- West Mall
