Ted Cruz:Thought Canadian Birth 'Didn't Matter'

paso
If YOU can show me where in the Cnstitution it said natural born only meant born in USA
OR you can show me any Supreme Court decision/ opinion that applies the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens also of USA
Even in the case you cited they made that distinction

You keep on every single time repeating that someone born in the USA is a citizen. YES they are.
That is not the same as Natural Born and you know it

and yes this means Cruz is not natural born either.
 
For what it's worth, Chester Arthur was born in the US to a citizen mother and a non-citizen father. To the best of my knowledge, his eligibility to run for the presidency was disputed but never litigated.
 
6721 you either intentionally or unintentionally do not understand the law or the way the law operates.

You do not have to prove that you are a natural-born citizen. This has to be challenged. Your claim that the Supreme Court has never considered this issue does not mean that there is any question whatsoever over Obama's citizenship or qualification. It is not up to him to "prove" this but rather up to someone to disprove it.

Every single case that challenged Obama including several that attempted to get a Supreme Court hearing were rejected and the many of the people who brought them were sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases. Your argument (and this is being charitable since you really do not have one) has been rejected by numerous courts including the United States Supreme Court.

You can continue talking gibberish and in circles, but it does not give you an actual argument. The citizenship of Obama's father is and was meaningless. This was decided in 1895.
 
Now all of you have abundant proof why I want a left-wing birther movement to challenge Cruz's status as a natural born U.S. citizen.
I want it for the entertainment value.
I want it because turn around is fair play.
I want it for revenge.
I want it because if the right challenges political appointments, the left challenge political appointments. If the left brings impeachment proceedings, the right will bring impeachment proceedings. If the right can be petty, vindictive, and bring nonsensical arguements to global warming, conspiracies, the role of the media, and the birth eligibility of the president, why can't the left do the same thing.
It's only fair. And don't tell me I have to make sense, after these explanations from the birthers, science deniers, sessionists, radical religious fanatics, et. al.
My arguement may be lacking substance, but it is a lot better than theirs. At least Cruz is not born on U.S. soil.
So you say there's a chance?
 
Libs and dems won't be happy until they are resettled on collective farms. Hellbent on destroying all that the U.S. stands for.
 
paso
Please stop pretending a citizen by birth is the same as " Natural Born".

and do you deny that the Justice Gray wrote this, in the courts opinion on the very case you cite?
'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."

Did Justice Gray write that in the court's opinion on the” case YOU keep citing?

This is NOT about BO alone.
I never singled out BO> I wrote many times that neither BO nor Cruz are Natural Born.
 
And to add just a little bit for the non-lawyer.

You look to English common law, as it existed in 1789, in interpreting or construing the language of the United States Constitution (which is what the Supreme Court did in Wong Kim Ark). Under English common law, natural-born citizen meant anyone (regardless of parents' citizenship) who was born in English territory (including the US before the revolution). This answers the question with Obama.

I slightly disagree with Deez on Cruz, but I don't care about this issue other than for entertainment value with birthers and Tea Party folks. I guess I will put my disagreement up for entertainment value. I think Cruz is probably a natural-born citizen. It would not be a frivolous challenge to claim that a statute cannot confer constitutional status and you must be a natural-born citizen by common law as it existed in 1789. There is some language in Wong Kim Ark that should give you pause in claiming Cruz is a natural-born citizen.

It is not frivolous to challenge Cruz although I think he ultimately prevails or should prevail.
 
It is hard to cite to Wong Kim Ark but the discussion that would concern me a bit if I was a Cruz supporter is on page 666 under IV along with the part that proceeds it. The Supreme Court rejects the argument that Roman and French law should be followed where citizenship follows the parents rather than physical location of birth.

I think an argument can be made that natural-born citizen means birthright and that having citizenship conferred by statute at birth would be considered naturalized by English common law in 1789.

The entertaining part would be the mental gymnastics Scalia and Thomas would go through to reject this argument.
 
Could Cruz ask for a ruling or ask someone to make a case against him before running for president? It would seem silly to wait until after elections for a ruling to be made. And would the Supreme Court have to make a decision on a case involving citizenship for a president or could it leave the decision up to the lower courts?
 
I think Cruz would be entitled to a declaratory judgment which means a court decision on his eligibility. He certainly is a legitimate candidate and the issue is colorable.

The Supreme Court can decline to hear a case for a variety of reasons including agreeing with the decision of the lower court. This occurred in at least two if not more instances with challenges to Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top