Your argument matters not to what the requirement is.Natural born citizen was never clearly defined in the Constitution though. There is definite question on what that would be in this day and age, when there are no longer real social consequences for having a child out of wedlock nor is it at all rare for people to be stationed overseas for the military or just simply have their child overseas just due to an issue out of their control. Those things really weren't likely in the past, especially when it came to woman, who wasn't likely to be traveling between the countries often, if at all.
Your argument matters not to what the requirement is.
And while the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue they know where to ascertain the meaning of natural born Citizen, which is in the language which our founders were familiar with. ie: The information previously provided regarding Vattel's The Laws of Nations, and with John Jay's letter to Washington.
If you'll take a second look at my comment you'll see that I didn't call Cruz anything.
I just said that his mouth will keep him out of the White House because I believe that's what's going to happen.
Lets wait and see what happens in 2016.
Fair doesn't matter to the the letter of the Constitution.I highly doubt the SCOTUS would see it that way if it became an issue. Especially if the person was a son or daughter of a military service member born overseas. It simply would not be fair.
It was meant to keep those who were not born of citizen parents, not on US soil, and those with a foreign allegiance from becoming the President.The simple fact is that part of the Constitution was meant to limit the ability of an adult to come over as a citizen of another country and become our President after only being a citizen for a few years or having been raised as a citizen of another country.
Fair doesn't matter to the the letter of the Constitution.
(sarcasm) For ****'s sake. Why not just let anyone who was born anywhere become the President. It is unfair to them if we do not. (end sarcasm)
A fairness argument is absurd as it is ridiculous.
Yes it is.It simply isn't right to consider that reasoning behind the rule applies to babies born outside of the country but still considered citizens at birth.
Just talking democrats and republicans in general. Tea Party has been called more names than anyone, but they tend to be the ones that express themselves the best. You could say that his mouth will keep him out, but it just might get him in, or at least in the race. Worked for Reagan. And we are talking landslides for Reagan.
Just talking democrats and republicans in general. Tea Party has been called more names than anyone, but they tend to be the ones that express themselves the best. You could say that his mouth will keep him out, but it just might get him in, or at least in the race. Worked for Reagan. And we are talking landslides for Reagan.
As a matter of fact I voted for Reagan back in 1980. Cruz doesn't even come close to having the charisma that Reagan had.
The more that I see and hear Cruz, the less I like him and he started out pretty low with me. :roll:
Yes it is.
Like I said. If you do not like it, amend the Constitution.
Mexican citizens are giving birth in this country. By our laws, should their children be Mexican citizens?
Regardless, it is right and fair and is why we have had Naturalization and Immigration Acts to cover such situations.
Honestly, I absolutely think they should be Mexican citizens, not American citizens if their parents are Mexican, especially if both parents are.
Well that is something. :thumbs:
Now if they had a natural born Citizen clause like ours, they wouldn't be eligible to be el Presidente because they were not born on Mexican soil.
Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the case.No, ours should simply include those citizens of ours born outside of the US but with at least one parent who is a US citizen.
Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the case.
Why you you do not want to abide by the Constitution is beyond me.
Do you just not follow any law you do not like?
Again. If you do not like it, try to have the Constitution amended.
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
It didn't need clarification. The Founders knew what it meant.Why? "Natural born citizen" has not been clarified by the actual Constitution.
:naughtyYou are the one wrong here.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Are you really not reading this thread?
As already pointed out, she got it wrong.
Again, I told which posts to read to find my position. Avail yourself of the information.
:doh
No it is not a stupid reason.
Why should it be? That is what the Constitution says.
If you do not like that, get it amended, until such time comes, it stands.
I said I get it! It's cool, McCain and Cruz were not born on US soil, so they're both not eligible for the presidency, whereas having been born on US soil Obama is.
Cruz hasn't got a chance. He'll make noise, but he won't even get the Republican nomination. He's way too far right on issues, especially social issues.
Reagan was a solid conservative.And as been pointed out many times Reagan was moderate, maybe even a little to the left on most social issues. He wasn't seen as a fanatic. His terms as gov. of Cali and president proves he was actually very moderate.
I'm comparing them in a the way that they aren't afraid to state their positions, and are both conservatives.Don't compare Cruz to Reagan, or today's GOP to the GOP of the 80's. It's apples and oranges.
:doh
No you don't get it.
As a matter of fact I voted for Reagan back in 1980. Cruz doesn't even come close to having the charisma that Reagan had.
The more that I see and hear Cruz, the less I like him and he started out pretty low with me. :roll:
Your postings?
I do not need to search the forum for your posts if you can not be bothered to provide them.
The only thing we seem to agree with is what I originally stated.
The Supreme Court has not settled this issue.
As you were told, they were already addressed.Why are you being so coy? Let's take them one at a time then, shall we? Was John McCain qualified to be president, based upon his birthright and birth place?
As you were told, they were already addressed.
And you were directed to the posts that would clarify your feigned ignorance of my position.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?