Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

paddymcdougall · Mar 23, 2015

I keep coming back to:

Ted Cruz is a citizen because he was born to a US Citizen (who did live in the US after age 14 for more than the required number of years). Nothing special had to be done to grant him citizenship. Therefore he is a natural born citizen.

Now I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't discuss this with the founders, and it may come to a Supreme Court case. But that's what makes sense to me.

(And ps - Obama born with "foreign allegiances"? What, to Kansas? Sorry, Excon, that doesn't fly)

Excon · Mar 27, 2015

EMNofSeattle said:
The constitution does not define natural born citizen by itself.

Thanks for stating the obvious which everybody has already recognized.

EMNofSeattle said:
Therefore plain meaning applies.

iLOL :doh
The plain meaning is that with which the Founders were familiar with at the time.

EMNofSeattle said:
Since Cruz was granted US citizenship due to federal law he is eligible.

You are speaking of a law that grants citizenship. That is not being naturally born. D'oh!
That is being a citizen by statute.

The Court already recognized two classes of citizens that may fall into the natural born citizen status. Both require the element of soil.
Of the two the Court said there was no doubt one class was natural born (On soil to Citizen parents). Of the second class of citizens there is doubts (Only born on soil).

If one considers the second class of citizen to be natural born, Cruz is then a natural born citizen of Canada.

paddymcdougall said:
I keep coming back to:

Ted Cruz is a citizen because he was born to a US Citizen (who did live in the US after age 14 for more than the required number of years). Nothing special had to be done to grant him citizenship. Therefore he is a natural born citizen.

You keep coming back to what is wrong.
That is a citizen by statute, not by the Constitution. Do you really not know the difference? He doesn't even qualify under the 14th as just a plain citizen. iLOL

paddymcdougall said:
(And ps - Obama born with "foreign allegiances"? What, to Kansas? Sorry, Excon, that doesn't fly)

Wrong paddymcdougall. As you were previously told you do not have the knowledge to be debating this topic and is why your argument again fails.
It is the very same argument you make in regards to Cruz.
By the US law, Cruz was born of an American woman and therefore had US citizenship.
Just as by Kenyan/British law Obama was born of a Kenyan Father and had Kenyan and British citizenship.

Obama as well as Cruz were born with foreign allegiances. Which is clearly what the letter to Washington by John Jay specifically addressed.

paddymcdougall · Mar 27, 2015

Whatever, excon. your logic isn't logical. You're making it up as you go along to get the results you want. But that's fine. We'll let the supreme court figure it out.

Davo The Mavo · Mar 27, 2015

PoS said:
The law is clear: one has to be born within US territory to be eligible for POTUS. Anyway I doubt Cruz would win if he ran so its a moot point.

That's not the law. Period. When an American citizen is born in a foreign country, it is called, "Birth of an American Abroad." The only requirement is that one of the parents be an American citizen. Period.

The American Embassy or nearest Consulate is authorized to issue a birth certificate stating exactly that . . . . "Birth of an American Abroad." My daughter was born in Okinawa. She had 2-kids when she was stationed in England . . . born in a UK Hospital. I assure you they all could run for president. It was nonsense with Obama and it is nonsense with this clown.

Excon · Mar 27, 2015

paddymcdougall said:
Whatever, excon. your logic isn't logical. You're making it up as you go along to get the results you want.

:naughty
Wrong paddymcdougall. Your argument wasn't logical as shown. Just as it was you making things up to come to conclusions you want. Not I.

You continually show you do not know the subject material enough to even debate it.

DiavoTheMiavo said:
That's not the law. Period. When an American citizen is born in a foreign country, it is called, "Birth of an American Abroad." The only requirement is that one of the parents be an American citizen. Period.

The American Embassy or nearest Consulate is authorized to issue a birth certificate stating exactly that . . . . "Birth of an American Abroad." My daughter was born in Okinawa. She had 2-kids when she was stationed in England . . . born in a UK Hospital. I assure you they all could run for president. It was nonsense with Obama and it is nonsense with this clown.

You assure? :doh That is nonsense.

They are citizens created by statute. Not by birth on soil.

The meaning of the natural born citizen requirement of the Constitution is not dependent on some some later created law. It is dependent on what the Framers meant by it at the time of it's inclusion.

Moot · Mar 27, 2015

chad1389 said:
Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president | Fox News

Are they the same lawyers that said torture was legal?

Davo The Mavo · Mar 27, 2015

Excon said:
:naughty
Wrong paddymcdougall. Your argument wasn't logical as shown. Just as it was you making things up to come to conclusions you want. Not I.

You continually show you do not know the subject material enough to even debate it.

You assure? :doh That is nonsense.

They are citizens created by statute. Not by birth on soil.

The meaning of the natural born citizen requirement of the Constitution is not dependent on some some later created law. It is dependent on what the Framers meant by it at the time of it's inclusion.

I don't care. And yes, I assure you. Otherwise . . . no dependent of military personnel would ever be eligible to run for president if born in a foreign country. I don't care if the framers said monkeys have to jump out of your arse to become a citizen . . . you don't have to today. Living document and all that crap, if you know what I mean.

Excon · Mar 27, 2015

DiavoTheMiavo said:
I don't care.

Yes, that can be seen.

DiavoTheMiavo said:
And yes, I assure you.

:doh You assure nothing.

DiavoTheMiavo said:
Otherwise . . . no dependent of military personnel would ever be eligible to run for president if born in a foreign country.

Obviously, unless born in our embassy which is our soil.
The Constitution makes a distinction for a reason and the Constitution is not beholden to any law.
McCain's citizenship was obtained by passage of a law after his birth, not by the nature of his birth.
What matters, as already acknowledged by the Court, is what the Framers meant by it.

DiavoTheMiavo said:
I don't care if the framers said monkeys have to jump out of your arse to become a citizen . . . you don't have to today. Living document and all that crap, if you know what I mean.

:doh Wrong.
What the Framers meant by it is all that matters at this point. Nor can it have the same meaning as the 14th as no Clause can be left without effect.

A child born overseas, unless on our soil, is just a Citizen by statute.
If the Country they were born in considers them a citizen of that country, they were born with foreign allegiances.

Davo The Mavo · Mar 28, 2015

Excon said:
Yes, that can be seen.

:doh You assure nothing.

Obviously, unless born in our embassy which is our soil.
The Constitution makes a distinction for a reason and the Constitution is not beholden to any law.
McCain's citizenship was obtained by passage of a law after his birth, not by the nature of his birth.
What matters, as already acknowledged by the Court, is what the Framers meant by it.

:doh Wrong.
What the Framers meant by it is all that matters at this point. Nor can it have the same meaning as the 14th as no Clause can be left without effect.

A child born overseas, unless on our soil, is just a Citizen by statute.
If the Country they were born in considers them a citizen of that country, they were born with foreign allegiances.

Oh My. Now I remember why I don't respond to you. The fact you have just argued that military dependents overseas are not eligible to be president indicates an obtuse nature I just cannot deal with. Have a nice day enjoying the fact you are as wrong as wrong can be. At the risk of getting points . . . you are a douche bag.

Crosscheck · Mar 28, 2015

DiavoTheMiavo said:
Oh My. Now I remember why I don't respond to you. The fact you have just argued that military dependents overseas are not eligible to be president indicates an obtuse nature I just cannot deal with. Have a nice day enjoying the fact you are as wrong as wrong can be. At the risk of getting points . . . you are a douche bag.

A child born to a US military member serving overseas should be awarded all rights and benefits that of a child born in one of the states. PERIOD. Not even up for debate for crying out loud.

Excon · Mar 29, 2015

DiavoTheMiavo said:
Oh My. Now I remember why I don't respond to you. The fact you have just argued that military dependents overseas are not eligible to be president indicates an obtuse nature I just cannot deal with. Have a nice day enjoying the fact you are as wrong as wrong can be. At the risk of getting points . . . you are a douche bag.

Your reply is nonsensical. There is nothing obtuse about it. It is the Constitution.
If you do not like what is meant by a Constitutional clause, amend the Constitution.

McCain was granted citizenship by statute because those born in the canal zone were not citizens. Not by birth and not by the fact that their parents were citizens.
A law had to be created to grant them citizenship, which is not being a natural born citizen. You can not escape that fact.

So the only one between the two of us that has an obtuse nature in regards to this topic would be you in not recognizing reality.

Cruz is citizen by statute and not a naturally born US citizen. He is a Canadian. Born on Canadian soil with Canadian citizenship owing Canadian allegiance and has a Canadian birth certificate.

Excon · Mar 29, 2015

Crosscheck said:
A child born to a US military member serving overseas should be awarded all rights and benefits that of a child born in one of the states. PERIOD. Not even up for debate for crying out loud.

:doh
"Should be" is not the same as "is".
If you do not like the Constitution amend it.

McCain was not born with citizen ship even though his parents were citizens.
A law had to be created to grant those born in the canal zone citizenship. Which only make him a citizen by statute. That is not being a natural born citizen.

Risky Thicket · Jul 12, 2015

Hatuey said:
Obama wasn't given flack for being factually born in another country. Obama was given flack because of the false claim that he was born in Kenya. Please don't try and confound the issues. I'll say this, it'll be great going through all of those "Obama is a Kenyan" threads. It'll be better finding the hypocrites who claimed that being born to an American parent in Hawaii didn't make a citizen. I wonder what they'll say now.

Hell of a post! Well said.

Politicshead · Jul 12, 2015

Excon said:
That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
That meaning hasn't changed.

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

Cruz renounced Canadian citizenship, so doesn't 'owe an allegiance' to another country. Of course, nobody owes allegiance to any country at birth, it's a stupid argument.

anyway, Obama was born on US soil to a US citizen, so how is he not eligible?

Politicshead · Jul 12, 2015

This whole natural born citizen rule is stupid anyway. I can understand why it was initially used; America was a new country formed out of rebellion. But it's not relevant in the 21st century.

Excon · Jul 13, 2015

Politicshead said:
Excon said:

That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution requires one be a Naturally born citizen.
That phase has a specific meaning requiring birth to a citizen parent, on US soil, and not being born owing allegiance to another country.
That meaning hasn't changed.

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

Click to expand...

Cruz renounced Canadian citizenship, so doesn't 'owe an allegiance' to another country. Of course, nobody owes allegiance to any country at birth, it's a stupid argument.

:naughty
No, saying it is a stupid argument is in fact a failed and stupid argument.

His later renunciation does not change the status or circumstances of his birth, nor could it.

You are also showing that you haven't paid attention to the information provided in this thread.

Politicshead said:
anyway, Obama was born on US soil to a US citizen, so how is he not eligible?

:doh By owing foreign allegiance.

Your arguments do not fly as our founders knew what was meant by the term.

What you obviously missed reading.

Excon said:
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[SUP][15][/SUP]

While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[SUP][16][/SUP]
Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More of what you missed reading continued below.

Excon · Jul 13, 2015

More info from the thread that you missed.

Excon said:
Benjamin Franklin shared Jefferson’s admiration for Vattel. In 1775, Franklin wrote in a letter:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.

Next, consider the irrefutable fact that Vattel’s interpretations of the law of nature were cited more frequently than any other writer’s on international law in cases heard in the courts of the early United States, and the Law of Nations was the primary textbook on the subject in use in American universities.

For all the foregoing reasons we are right to turn to the Swss-born Vattel’s Law of Nations for our understanding of the definition of “natural born citizen” just as our Founding Fathers did.

To that end, here are a few relevant selections from Vattel’s Law of Nations regarding the concept of “natural born citizen”:

§ 212: “Natural born citizens are those born in a country to parents who are also citizens of that country. Particularly, if the father of the person is not a citizen then the child is not a citizen either. Children cannot inherit from parents rights not enjoyed by them.”

§ 213: “While those individuals described above may be permitted to remain in the country of their birth, they are not naturally endowed with the rights of citizens.”

§ 214: “A country may allow a person born in a country to foreign parents the status of citizenship, this is called naturalization. That is a function of law, not of birthright.”

§§ 215, 216 & 217: “Children born overseas to parents who are foreigners in that country do not become natural born citizens of that country, rather they are citizens of the country to which their parents owe allegiance.”
Argument as provided in reference to Rubio and Jindal not being eligible.

But you can you can find Vattel's work here for yourself.
Emmerich de Vattel: The Law of Nations

Ahlevah · Jul 13, 2015

Hatuey said:
I'll say this, it'll be great going through all of those "Obama is a Kenyan" threads. It'll be better finding the hypocrites who claimed that being born to an American parent in Hawaii didn't make a citizen. I wonder what they'll say now.

The problem I had was Obama obfuscating an actual birth certificate with the abstract he initially released. Even Hillary was a "Birther" on this score, to no avail. He resisted releasing the long-form for a long time until The Donald called him on it.

Donald Trump: I really don't know where Obama was born

Politicshead · Aug 1, 2015

Excon said:
:naughty
No, saying it is a stupid argument is in fact a failed and stupid argument.

His later renunciation does not change the status or circumstances of his birth, nor could it.

You are also showing that you haven't paid attention to the information provided in this thread.

:doh By owing foreign allegiance.

Your arguments do not fly as our founders knew what was meant by the term.

What you obviously missed reading.

More of what you missed reading continued below.

Err...you're going to have explain how Obama owes allegiance to a foreign country?? Nobody owes allegiance to country based on birth, especially when they have renounced citizenship as in Cruz's case.

And yes, the natural born citizen rule is stupid in this day and age. I get why they felt it was needed at the start, to protect US sovereignty, but it serves no purpose now.

Excon · Aug 1, 2015

Politicshead said:
Err...you're going to have explain how Obama owes allegiance to a foreign country?? Nobody owes allegiance to country based on birth, especially when they have renounced citizenship as in Cruz's case.

:doh
A person is born with that allegiance.
Renouncing it has no affect on the status of their birth.

The requirement for the Office of President is higher than that of just "citizen" for the lower Offices.

Politicshead said:
And yes, the natural born citizen rule is stupid in this day and age. I get why they felt it was needed at the start, to protect US sovereignty, but it serves no purpose now.

:doh
What you think serves no purpose is irrelevant.
Your lean being socialist, makes it even more irrelevant.

WSUwarrior · Aug 1, 2015

Politicshead said:
Err...you're going to have explain how Obama owes allegiance to a foreign country?? Nobody owes allegiance to country based on birth, especially when they have renounced citizenship as in Cruz's case.

And yes, the natural born citizen rule is stupid in this day and age. I get why they felt it was needed at the start, to protect US sovereignty, but it serves no purpose now.

It serves MORE of a purpose now since we are being weakened as a nation under the stupidity of socialism and liberalism.

Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

paddymcdougall

Excon

paddymcdougall

Davo The Mavo

Is Idiot Supreme

Excon

Moot

Davo The Mavo

Is Idiot Supreme

Excon

Davo The Mavo

Is Idiot Supreme

Crosscheck

Excon

Excon

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Politicshead

Member

Politicshead

Member

Excon

Excon

Ahlevah

Politicshead

Member

Excon

WSUwarrior

Well-known member

Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Is Idiot Supreme

Is Idiot Supreme

Is Idiot Supreme

Sewer Rat

Member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency