then who Can't, be President ??

[Boss]

please point me to a precedent for a vice or presidential candidate, since those are the only two jobs to require such a thing (a definition or proclamation of natural born). nice try though.

The 1790 Naturalization Act: "children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

I think this is probably as close as you'll get to a definitive legal precedent for "natural born" citizen. It is an ambiguous term, that's why it continues to be such an issue. If there were some place in the Constitution where it clearly defined "natural born" it hardly seems we'd ever have these long, drawn-out debates. So it's not a cut-and-dry matter and the SCOTUS has never ruled on it.... but, that in of itself is a remarkable testament worth considering... in our 240 years, the high court has never been compelled to rule specifically on this issue.

That may largely be due to the fact the court doesn't involve itself with "political questions." If things come before the court as a matter of political question, they defer to political process (the will of the people) and reject hearing the case.

 

[washamericom]

please point me to a precedent for a vice or presidential candidate, since those are the only two jobs to require such a thing (a definition or proclamation of natural born). nice try though.

The 1790 Naturalization Act: "children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

I think this is probably as close as you'll get to a definitive legal precedent for "natural born" citizen. It is an ambiguous term, that's why it continues to be such an issue. If there were some place in the Constitution where it clearly defined "natural born" it hardly seems we'd ever have these long, drawn-out debates. So it's not a cut-and-dry matter and the SCOTUS has never ruled on it.... but, that in of itself is a remarkable testament worth considering... in our 240 years, the high court has never been compelled to rule specifically on this issue.

That may largely be due to the fact the court doesn't involve itself with "political questions." If things come before the court as a matter of political question, they defer to political process (the will of the people) and reject hearing the case.

well said, it doesn't seem settled. and it's topping the political news. the 1790 act was repealed in 1795,
naturalization laws 1790-1795

thanks for the imput. it will be interesting if Trump sues. he has standing, and it would be a first if discovery allowed, which i think was almost allowed once in an obama case.

rubio and cruz are working on a resolution to allow hillary and bernie to run.

 

[kaz]

What people is that? Is this part of your hatred of black people again?

heh, nice try man... i have no way of knowing what color you are..

Swish

i just know you as one of the board liberals, not that notable

Save the whales. Hug a tree

i don't even know if you are a boy or a girl. none of that matters here.

irrelevant to the discussion

 

[Boss]

well said, it doesn't seem settled. and it's topping the political news. the 1790 act was repealed in 1795,
naturalization laws 1790-1795

Sorry, but just because a law is repealed or changed doesn't mean the definitions established within that law are irrelevant. That is sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and such an exercise would leave us without much of a Constitution.

The naturalization laws have been changed numerous times. You asked me for some definitive clause in law which established "natural born" and I gave it to you. The repeal of that law doesn't mention "natural born" anywhere, which can only mean the repeal had nothing to do with that definition.

it will be interesting if Trump sues. he has standing, and it would be a first if discovery allowed, which i think was almost allowed once in an obama case.

He doesn't have standing. If he sues, the case will not be heard by SCOTUS because it would violate the "political question doctrine" to do so. That's precisely why we have a 240 year history of the court not weighing in on this particular issue which has been raised numerous times for several candidates over the years.

 

[Unkotare]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?, cause i'd like to know, and how it ties into the constitution proclaiming natural born, and a grandfather clause for those who couldn't qualify at the time.

i wan't to hear from some lay people, not just the so called experts all the time. the constitution speaks to and for all of us. the dickhead obots need not apply.

anchor babies, grace kelly children ? there are endless examples. if Cruz is eligible as a dual citizen, then who isn't ?? obviously people are talking about it now. will the democrats use it as a way to angle in ?


the next round of primaries will put the the issue either to rest or on smack dab in the middle.

You realize "anchor baby" is not a legal designation, right?

You realize "anchor baby" is not a legal designation, right?

correct.
neither are anchor babies. should they be deemed to qualify ?

Natural born US citizens are of course 'qualified,' so its a pointless question.

no, it's not pointless....

Of course it is.

 

[washamericom]

well said, it doesn't seem settled. and it's topping the political news. the 1790 act was repealed in 1795,
naturalization laws 1790-1795

Sorry, but just because a law is repealed or changed doesn't mean the definitions established within that law are irrelevant. That is sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and such an exercise would leave us without much of a Constitution.

The naturalization laws have been changed numerous times. You asked me for some definitive clause in law which established "natural born" and I gave it to you. The repeal of that law doesn't mention "natural born" anywhere, which can only mean the repeal had nothing to do with that definition.

it will be interesting if Trump sues. he has standing, and it would be a first if discovery allowed, which i think was almost allowed once in an obama case.

He doesn't have standing. If he sues, the case will not be heard by SCOTUS because it would violate the "political question doctrine" to do so. That's precisely why we have a 240 year history of the court not weighing in on this particular issue which has been raised numerous times for several candidates over the years.

i like all of it, is law your profession ?? why the grandfather clause. what do you think of wong kim ark, minor v happersett #14 arguments etc ?
would the constitution have to be amended ? are cruz and rubio eligible.

was obama ever a dual citizen. is Trump's mother a citizen by marriage ?

one or two citizen parents ?

i'm still unclear, if a law is repealed, it's still in effect ?? to me the constitution came first, i don't foresee anything that could happen, that would "leave us without much of the constitution", in your parlance, sounds a bit tricky.

finally, who has standing, and who can't be president according to the constitution now ?

 

[g5000]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?,

 

[g5000]

You probably did not know this, but McCain was also not born in the US, he was born in Panama, yet no one seemed to care when he ran of President

So you see, it's not a violation of the Constitution Dims are worried about, it's about who might win the kingship they have created in the Executive Office.

Its not Democrats who are Cruz birthers, dimwit. It's Trump supporters, and the like.

 

[g5000]

And who isn't eligible? Someone who wasn't a citizen at birth.

Its not that complicated.

Bingo.

 

[washamericom]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?,

this is good, we found someone that can't... winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[g5000]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?

*sob*

 

[jillian]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?, cause i'd like to know, and how it ties into the constitution proclaiming natural born, and a grandfather clause for those who couldn't qualify at the time.

i wan't to hear from some lay people, not just the so called experts all the time. the constitution speaks to and for all of us. the dickhead obots need not apply.

anchor babies, grace kelly children ? there are endless examples. if Cruz is eligible as a dual citizen, then who isn't ?? obviously people are talking about it now. will the democrats use it as a way to angle in ?


the next round of primaries will put the the issue either to rest or on smack dab in the middle.

the idiotas don't decide what the constitution means. the Court does.

 

[Skylar]

well said, it doesn't seem settled. and it's topping the political news. the 1790 act was repealed in 1795,
naturalization laws 1790-1795

Sorry, but just because a law is repealed or changed doesn't mean the definitions established within that law are irrelevant. That is sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and such an exercise would leave us without much of a Constitution.

Depends. The 1790 Naturalization Act makes one thing undeniably clear: natural born citizenship under the constitution didn't include children born to US parents abroad. That was added after the constitution was ratified.

With Cruz's citizenship not embodied in the constitution but instead congressional statute....which statute was in effect when he was born in immediately relevant. And the definitions of the 1790 Naturalization Act were not in effect in 1970 when Cruz was born. That would be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Which makes no mention of 'natural born' anything.

 

[g5000]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?,

 

[Skylar]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?

Anyone who wasn't a U.S. Citizen at birth.

Cruz was.

 

[Skylar]

please point me to a precedent for a vice or presidential candidate, since those are the only two jobs to require such a thing (a definition or proclamation of natural born). nice try though.

The 1790 Naturalization Act: "children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed over 200 years ago. It it cites parents. Not 'parent'.

Citing the 1790 Naturalization Act as defining natural born citizenship fails twice. First, because it came after the Constitution. Establishing undeniably that natural born citizenship for children born abroad to US citizens is not embodied in the constitution. And it was repealed in 1795. Eliminating congressional statute as an avenue for the acquisition of natural born citizenship.

Use an originalitst interpretation, and the 1790 Act is irrelevant. Use Congressional Statute, and the 1790 act is irrelevant. Use a living constitution interpretation, and the 1790 Act is irrelevant.

The only thing that the 1790 Naturalization Act does is establish that in the first congress the founders clearly recognized that congress can extend natural born citizenship through statute.

That's it.

 

[washamericom]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?

Anyone who wasn't a U.S. Citizen at birth.

Cruz was.

you almost sound like you know what you're talking about skyman. neither parent as a citizen seems to be at the heart of the matter. so we're back to english royalty dropping anchor babies.

i believe dual citizenship might have been a problem back then, ergo the grandfather clause.

 

[Arizona Willie]

I think we should rule out those born on other planets. . .

========
And those with an IQ below 100 which rules out almost every single Republican.

 

[Arizona Willie]

let's try this from a different angle. Cruz for example was born in a foreign country to one America citizen, his mother.

so who can't be president ?, cause i'd like to know, and how it ties into the constitution proclaiming natural born, and a grandfather clause for those who couldn't qualify at the time.

i wan't to hear from some lay people, not just the so called experts all the time. the constitution speaks to and for all of us. the dickhead obots need not apply.

anchor babies, grace kelly children ? there are endless examples. if Cruz is eligible as a dual citizen, then who isn't ?? obviously people are talking about it now. will the democrats use it as a way to angle in ?


the next round of primaries will put the the issue either to rest or on smack dab in the middle.

You probably did not know this, but McCain was also not born in the US, he was born in Panama, yet no one seemed to care when he ran of President

So you see, it's not a violation of the Constitution Dims are worried about, it's about who might win the kingship they have created in the Executive Office.

McCain was one of them so they had no real issue with him possibly winning. Cruz, on the other hand.............

========
It was REPUBLICANS who first raised this issue trying to keep a n*i*g*g*e*r out of the White House so they could keep THEIR people in it, just like you accuse the Democrats of doing.

Hypocritical much?

 

[Arizona Willie]

You probably did not know this, but McCain was also not born in the US, he was born in Panama, yet no one seemed to care when he ran of President

Actually, someone did care because a case was made challenging his eligibility and it was rejected.

I never heard about it.

So I guess McCain settled it then, it does not matter.

See what happens when Progs bypass the Constitution?

Soon SCOTUS will hear cases about the increased power of the President using Executive Orders that conflict with laws on the books and bypassing his own law Obamacare etc. Now imagine SCOTUS giving Obummer a rubber stamp of approval, which is all they do, and making those actions Constitutional and then having Trump assume his position.

Trump will be king and untouchable. Thanks to a government without checks and balances, Trump will soon be doing to Muslims what FDR did to Japanese Americans.

========

Obama issued fewer Executive Orders than any other President and he has the power to do so under the Constitution which you claim to love until it doesn't fit your agenda.