alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[Skylar]

Wrong. The Constitution STILL requires a few things. ONE of those things is that the contender BE a Natural Born Citizen (i.e., an "NBC").

And nobody, so far, has established that being born of an American parent at the time of birth (regardless of place of birth) means that a person is anything other than an NBC.

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

the constitution reads natural born, with a grandfather clause.

The constitution doesn't *define* natural born. Which is where you run into problems using the constitution alone to define the term.

it's up to the next supreme court, first monday in october of an election year, could be interesting.
at some point it will come up. this is why we have three distinct branches of government.

Its unlikely to take up any such case. As its genuinely not a matter of particular importance. We're talking about US citizens at birth.

the supreme court without permission from anyone but god are obligated to interpret cases of law, they are at the top of the pyramid, the final word.

Interpreting the constitution is part of the Judcial Power. So says Federalist Paper 78.

 

[dcraelin]

this is so weird, this thread should be in the conspiracy section.

anyone can be president now. you may be born anytime, anywhere to anyone, just show up, it's fine.

Wrong. The Constitution STILL requires a few things. ONE of those things is that the contender BE a Natural Born Citizen (i.e., an "NBC").

And nobody, so far, has established that being born of an American parent at the time of birth (regardless of place of birth) means that a person is anything other than an NBC.

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer could confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Im going to go with the founders too, and the Constitution was written to be amended, not to be modified by Congress on its own.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong. The Constitution STILL requires a few things. ONE of those things is that the contender BE a Natural Born Citizen (i.e., an "NBC").

And nobody, so far, has established that being born of an American parent at the time of birth (regardless of place of birth) means that a person is anything other than an NBC.

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer to confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Circular reasoning. As you're using your premise as your conclusion: the Founders didn't extend natural born status via legislation because they can't extend natural born status via legislation.

That's an argument with no corners. You'll need to first establish that the Founders *couldn't* extend natural born status via legislation. Which, of course, you've failed utterly to do. Remember, you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of the claim's veracity.

Second, Occam's Razor cuts that theory to ribbons. If these children were already natural born citizens, the entire statute citing them would be unnecessary. Yet it was important enough to the founders that they included it in the very first naturalization act in the very first session of congress.

Your explanation makes no sense and is pointlessly complicated. As there would be no need, and no part of that legislation would be legally binding. Its far, far more likely that the founders extended natural born status to these children, and their legislation *was* legally binding.

As why would the founders pass a law they had no authority to pass? Your claim fails tests of reason and needless complexity. In addition to be pointlessly circular.

 

[dcraelin]

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer to confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Circular reasoning. As you're using your premise as your conclusion: the Founders didn't extend natural born status via legislation because they can't extend natural born status via legislation.

That's an argument with no corners. You'll need to first establish that the Founders *couldn't* extend natural born status via legislation. Which, of course, you've failed utterly to do. Remember, you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of the claim's veracity.

Second, Occam's Razor cuts that theory to ribbons. If these children were already natural born citizens, the entire statute citing them would be unnecessary. Yet it was important enough to the founders that they included it in the very first naturalization act in the very first session of congress.

Your explanation makes no sense and is pointlessly complicated. As there would be no need, and no part of that legislation would be legally binding. Its far, far more likely that the founders extended natural born status to these children, and their legislation *was* legally binding.

As why would the founders pass a law they had no authority to pass? Your claim fails tests of reason and needless complexity. In addition to be pointlessly circular.

it is not circular reasoning, as you stated in you own damn post just a few up, it is up to the federal courts to interpret the Constitution not the fucking Congress

 

[Skylar]

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer to confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Circular reasoning. As you're using your premise as your conclusion: the Founders didn't extend natural born status via legislation because they can't extend natural born status via legislation.

That's an argument with no corners. You'll need to first establish that the Founders *couldn't* extend natural born status via legislation. Which, of course, you've failed utterly to do. Remember, you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of the claim's veracity.

Second, Occam's Razor cuts that theory to ribbons. If these children were already natural born citizens, the entire statute citing them would be unnecessary. Yet it was important enough to the founders that they included it in the very first naturalization act in the very first session of congress.

Your explanation makes no sense and is pointlessly complicated. As there would be no need, and no part of that legislation would be legally binding. Its far, far more likely that the founders extended natural born status to these children, and their legislation *was* legally binding.

As why would the founders pass a law they had no authority to pass? Your claim fails tests of reason and needless complexity. In addition to be pointlessly circular.

it is not circular reasoning, as you stated in you own damn post just a few up, it is up to the federal courts to interpret the Constitution not the fucking Congress

Its absolutely circular reasoning. As you've argued that Congress couldn't use legislation to extend natural born citizenship in the Naturalization Act of 1790 because Congress can't use legislation to extend natural born citizenship.

Your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing. Its an argument that goes round and round. And never once factually establishes that Congress can't extend natural born citizenship through legislation.

And of course your argument is uselessly complicated. With the founders, for no particular reason, passing a piece of legislation that has no purpose, isn't legally binding, and is completely unnecessary.

That's just stupid. And is shredded by Occam's Razor.

While congress extending natural born status to children born to 2 US parents abroad via the Naturalization Act of 1790 makes perfect sense. And is far, far simpler.

 

[dcraelin]

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer to confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Circular reasoning. As you're using your premise as your conclusion: the Founders didn't extend natural born status via legislation because they can't extend natural born status via legislation.

That's an argument with no corners. You'll need to first establish that the Founders *couldn't* extend natural born status via legislation. Which, of course, you've failed utterly to do. Remember, you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of the claim's veracity.

Second, Occam's Razor cuts that theory to ribbons. If these children were already natural born citizens, the entire statute citing them would be unnecessary. Yet it was important enough to the founders that they included it in the very first naturalization act in the very first session of congress.

Your explanation makes no sense and is pointlessly complicated. As there would be no need, and no part of that legislation would be legally binding. Its far, far more likely that the founders extended natural born status to these children, and their legislation *was* legally binding.

As why would the founders pass a law they had no authority to pass? Your claim fails tests of reason and needless complexity. In addition to be pointlessly circular.

YOU have GOT to be being deliberately obtuse, over and fucking over I state that they are given permission to create uniform rules of naturaliztion. Even if it was the exact same group of people that wrote the Constitution in that 1790 Congress...they could not change the contract of the Constitution without the amending process.....

and the inclusion of a grandfather clause for early presidents also shows that they did not want Congress modifying that part of the Constitution.

 

[dcraelin]

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer to confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Circular reasoning. As you're using your premise as your conclusion: the Founders didn't extend natural born status via legislation because they can't extend natural born status via legislation.

That's an argument with no corners. You'll need to first establish that the Founders *couldn't* extend natural born status via legislation. Which, of course, you've failed utterly to do. Remember, you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of the claim's veracity.

Second, Occam's Razor cuts that theory to ribbons. If these children were already natural born citizens, the entire statute citing them would be unnecessary. Yet it was important enough to the founders that they included it in the very first naturalization act in the very first session of congress.

Your explanation makes no sense and is pointlessly complicated. As there would be no need, and no part of that legislation would be legally binding. Its far, far more likely that the founders extended natural born status to these children, and their legislation *was* legally binding.

As why would the founders pass a law they had no authority to pass? Your claim fails tests of reason and needless complexity. In addition to be pointlessly circular.

it is not circular reasoning, as you stated in you own damn post just a few up, it is up to the federal courts to interpret the Constitution not the fucking Congress

Its absolutely circular reasoning. As you've argued that Congress couldn't use legislation to extend natural born citizenship in the Naturalization Act of 1790 because Congress can't use legislation to extend natural born citizenship.

Your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing. Its an argument that goes round and round. And never once factually establishes that Congress can't extend natural born citizenship through legislation.

And of course your argument is uselessly complicated. With the founders, for no particular reason, passing a piece of legislation that has no purpose, isn't legally binding, and is completely unnecessary.

That's just stupid. And is shredded by Occam's Razor.

While congress extending natural born status to children born to 2 US parents abroad via the Naturalization Act of 1790 makes perfect sense. And is far, far simpler.

ah fuck off,,,,your just getting your chuckles by being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Skylar]

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer to confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Circular reasoning. As you're using your premise as your conclusion: the Founders didn't extend natural born status via legislation because they can't extend natural born status via legislation.

That's an argument with no corners. You'll need to first establish that the Founders *couldn't* extend natural born status via legislation. Which, of course, you've failed utterly to do. Remember, you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of the claim's veracity.

Second, Occam's Razor cuts that theory to ribbons. If these children were already natural born citizens, the entire statute citing them would be unnecessary. Yet it was important enough to the founders that they included it in the very first naturalization act in the very first session of congress.

Your explanation makes no sense and is pointlessly complicated. As there would be no need, and no part of that legislation would be legally binding. Its far, far more likely that the founders extended natural born status to these children, and their legislation *was* legally binding.

As why would the founders pass a law they had no authority to pass? Your claim fails tests of reason and needless complexity. In addition to be pointlessly circular.

YOU have GOT to be being deliberately obtuse, over and fucking over I state that they are given permission to create uniform rules of naturaliztion. Even if it was the exact same group of people that wrote the Constitution in that 1790 Congress...they could not change the contract of the Constitution without the amending process.....

And insults are your tell, D. You know your argument is blithering nonsense, uselessly complicated, contradicted by legislation, and hopelessly circular.

As you have yet to factually establish that congress can't extend natural born citizenship via legislation. With your laughably premise being that Congress passed a piece of legislation that they knew had no authority, wasn't legally binding, and was completely unnecessary.

That's ridiculous.

And by your insults, you know its ridiculous. As you've added Ad Hominem fallacies to your Circular Reasoning fallacy and a spectacular failure of Occam's Razor. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need the fallacies. Yet your argument collapses utterly without them.

It collapses utterly with them, but that's more rhetorical frosting.

 

[Skylar]

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer to confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Circular reasoning. As you're using your premise as your conclusion: the Founders didn't extend natural born status via legislation because they can't extend natural born status via legislation.

That's an argument with no corners. You'll need to first establish that the Founders *couldn't* extend natural born status via legislation. Which, of course, you've failed utterly to do. Remember, you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of the claim's veracity.

Second, Occam's Razor cuts that theory to ribbons. If these children were already natural born citizens, the entire statute citing them would be unnecessary. Yet it was important enough to the founders that they included it in the very first naturalization act in the very first session of congress.

Your explanation makes no sense and is pointlessly complicated. As there would be no need, and no part of that legislation would be legally binding. Its far, far more likely that the founders extended natural born status to these children, and their legislation *was* legally binding.

As why would the founders pass a law they had no authority to pass? Your claim fails tests of reason and needless complexity. In addition to be pointlessly circular.

it is not circular reasoning, as you stated in you own damn post just a few up, it is up to the federal courts to interpret the Constitution not the fucking Congress

Its absolutely circular reasoning. As you've argued that Congress couldn't use legislation to extend natural born citizenship in the Naturalization Act of 1790 because Congress can't use legislation to extend natural born citizenship.

Your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing. Its an argument that goes round and round. And never once factually establishes that Congress can't extend natural born citizenship through legislation.

And of course your argument is uselessly complicated. With the founders, for no particular reason, passing a piece of legislation that has no purpose, isn't legally binding, and is completely unnecessary.

That's just stupid. And is shredded by Occam's Razor.

While congress extending natural born status to children born to 2 US parents abroad via the Naturalization Act of 1790 makes perfect sense. And is far, far simpler.

ah fuck off,,,,your just getting your chuckles by being deliberately obtuse.

I get my chuckles by applying better sources, better reasoning, and better evidence.

The founders in the first session of congress did *exactly* what you insisted they weren't allowed to do. And your explanation for why is embarrassingly bad, uselessly complicated, and hopelessly circular. With your premise being that Congress passed a piece of legislation that they knew had no authority, wasn't legally binding, and was completely unnecessary.

That's stupid.

My explanation makes perfect sense, is far, far simpler, and logically consistent.

 

[Faun]

Wrong. The Constitution STILL requires a few things. ONE of those things is that the contender BE a Natural Born Citizen (i.e., an "NBC").

And nobody, so far, has established that being born of an American parent at the time of birth (regardless of place of birth) means that a person is anything other than an NBC.

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer could confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Im going to go with the founders too, and the Constitution was written to be amended, not to be modified by Congress on its own.

Well that's not true.

Congress can pass any legislation they want, including defining the term, "natural born citizen." And any such legislation would be constitutional unless the judicial branch deemed otherwise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You weren't aware that, as a US territory, Puerto Rico's citizens are also US citizens (although they don't vote in Presidential elections)?

They are US citizens. But unlike other folks born in the US, they aren't citizens at birth. They have a unique designation: 'naturalized at birth'. No other territory has such a designation for their citizens in any era of our history.

As for their 'voting for president' all such votes are a privilege extended by state legislatures, as the manner of selecting their electors is entirely at up to the legislatures. They could pick it themselves if they wished, or choose randomly, or pick their electors for candidates alphabetically. Whatever they wish.

Since Puerto Rico isn't a state, they have no state legislature to assign electors too. And thus no privilege of 'voting for the president' to extend.

Oh, Christ, conclusive proof that dumbfuckery is a contagious disease.

And beyond the predictable ad hominem fallacies, do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

Been there, said that, done treating you animatronics like real people.

Ah, then you have nothing relevant to offer. When and if that changes, feel free to join us.

Yes, of course. The points that I have made multiple times simply do not exist if you can just ignore them long enough for me to dismiss you as a fucktard.

When and if you grow a pair, feel free to respond to them. Until then, enjoy celebrating the "victory" of preventing any facts from entering your fortress of stupid.

And maybe you could give us a chorus of "It's a Small World". I just love the way you guys move ALMOST like you're alive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this is so weird, this thread should be in the conspiracy section.

anyone can be president now. you may be born anytime, anywhere to anyone, just show up, it's fine.

Wrong. The Constitution STILL requires a few things. ONE of those things is that the contender BE a Natural Born Citizen (i.e., an "NBC").

And nobody, so far, has established that being born of an American parent at the time of birth (regardless of place of birth) means that a person is anything other than an NBC.

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Just as being a british citizen doesnt qualify you to be king or Queen, being a citizen of the US does not allow you to be president.

The status of Puerto Ricans is essentially the same as children born overseas to US citizens....they just spelled it out better.....as they should have in other cases.

So, IF the Goldman-Sachs' errand-boy is eligible for anything it may be for governor of Puerto Rico, not president of the United States.

Now the Presidency is equivalent to a hereditary monarchy.

This reveals so much about why leftists are a useless hindrance to a republic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer could confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Im going to go with the founders too, and the Constitution was written to be amended, not to be modified by Congress on its own.

Well that's not true.

Congress can pass any legislation they want, including defining the term, "natural born citizen." And any such legislation would be constitutional unless the judicial branch deemed otherwise.

DC thinks that "natural born citizen" is a law of nature, like gravity or thermodynamics, not something decided by legislation.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[dcraelin]

this is so weird, this thread should be in the conspiracy section.

anyone can be president now. you may be born anytime, anywhere to anyone, just show up, it's fine.

Wrong. The Constitution STILL requires a few things. ONE of those things is that the contender BE a Natural Born Citizen (i.e., an "NBC").

And nobody, so far, has established that being born of an American parent at the time of birth (regardless of place of birth) means that a person is anything other than an NBC.

people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.

birther is a good example of that, emails, benghazi, anything goes.

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Just as being a british citizen doesnt qualify you to be king or Queen, being a citizen of the US does not allow you to be president.

The status of Puerto Ricans is essentially the same as children born overseas to US citizens....they just spelled it out better.....as they should have in other cases.

So, IF the Goldman-Sachs' errand-boy is eligible for anything it may be for governor of Puerto Rico, not president of the United States.

Now the Presidency is equivalent to a hereditary monarchy.

This reveals so much about why leftists are a useless hindrance to a republic.

Jefferson called the presidency a poor copy of a polish king.

and we have had 2 father son teams, with a clinton and a bush running this time

 

[dcraelin]

Again, Wash......the constitution doesn't define the term 'natural born citizen'. You have to go to other sources to find the Founder's understanding of the term. With the USSC using the most logical; British common law. The legal tradition from which our own arose and the one the founders were most familiar with.

And in British common law, natural born status follows place of birth.

However, as the Congress clearly has the authority to pass legislation that affects this status (as the Naturalization Act of 1790 elegantly demonstrates), we're left with only three options under today's law.

Citiizen at birth (natural born)
Naturalized at birth (Only applies to Puerto Rico)
Naturalized (citizen after birth)

And anyone who is born to US parents (with certain restrictions that Cruz's mom meets) is a citizen at birth. And thus, a natural born citizen. Cruz is a legitimate, if quite awful, candidate.

I suspect that British law was confused on this issue itself and that the founders were attempting to clarify things a bit with "uniform rules of naturalization". which however DO NOT allow congress to define what the constitution means in regard to presidential eligibility.

Says you. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says otherwise. As it explicitly extends natural born status to those born to two US parents abroad. Doing exactly what you insist Congress wasn't allowed to do.

Given the Founders in the 1st session of congress vs. you citing yourself....I'm gonna go with the Founders.

God are you dense,.....it does not and cannot extend natural born status, that is simple common sense language that the founders didnt think anyone but the most stubborn-ass lawyer could confuse. .....it extends citizenship.

Im going to go with the founders too, and the Constitution was written to be amended, not to be modified by Congress on its own.

Well that's not true.

Congress can pass any legislation they want, including defining the term, "natural born citizen." And any such legislation would be constitutional unless the judicial branch deemed otherwise.

DC thinks that "natural born citizen" is a law of nature, like gravity or thermodynamics, not something decided by legislation.

and the vast majority of common sense americans would agree with me.

 

[dcraelin]

only he isnt even an anchor baby, he is a naturalized citizen ineligible for the office of the presidency.

 

[washamericom]

only he isnt even an anchor baby, he is a naturalized citizen ineligible for the office of the presidency.

he would be the third foreign born president.

 

[Faun]

only he isnt even an anchor baby, he is a naturalized citizen ineligible for the office of the presidency.

he would be the third foreign born president.

What about the first 8 presidents? Other than them, every president has been born in the U.S..

 

[Skylar]

They are US citizens. But unlike other folks born in the US, they aren't citizens at birth. They have a unique designation: 'naturalized at birth'. No other territory has such a designation for their citizens in any era of our history.

As for their 'voting for president' all such votes are a privilege extended by state legislatures, as the manner of selecting their electors is entirely at up to the legislatures. They could pick it themselves if they wished, or choose randomly, or pick their electors for candidates alphabetically. Whatever they wish.

Since Puerto Rico isn't a state, they have no state legislature to assign electors too. And thus no privilege of 'voting for the president' to extend.

Oh, Christ, conclusive proof that dumbfuckery is a contagious disease.

And beyond the predictable ad hominem fallacies, do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

Been there, said that, done treating you animatronics like real people.

Ah, then you have nothing relevant to offer. When and if that changes, feel free to join us.

Yes, of course. The points that I have made multiple times simply do not exist if you can just ignore them long enough for me to dismiss you as a fucktard.

When and if you grow a pair, feel free to respond to them. Until then, enjoy celebrating the "victory" of preventing any facts from entering your fortress of stupid.

And maybe you could give us a chorus of "It's a Small World". I just love the way you guys move ALMOST like you're alive.

You've made no points. Your entire post was an excuse why you have nothing relevant to offer.

When you wish to join the conversation with something relevant, feel free.