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

[washamericom]

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.

 

[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.

Dumbshit, to your ilk, the Constitution has never been anything more than expensive and well-protected toilet paper, so your sudden "interest" in protecting it isn't even funny. It's just pathetic.

 

[dcraelin]

you need to clean out your ears.......I was talking about your vaunted Goldman-Sachs' errand-boy

I'm well aware of what you THOUGHT you were saying. I'm just telling you what you ACTUALLY conveyed.

No amount of leftist desire to be serious and meaningful will actually make it happen. Wishing upon a star will not make you intelligent or relevant.

like a lot of rt-wingers, I have little trust in the rulings of our judicial system......but if they were to rule correctly, logically, and consistently with the Constitution, they would rule that the Goldman-Sachs' errand-boy is not eligible for the presidency, since he was born in Canada.

I actually like some of the things about the facade that Cruz puts on however. His opposition to Obama/Romney care. But there are huge indications its all a show. I believe it was his lead on the government shutdown that ended up just giving a bunch of overpaid federal workers a paid vacation.

Cruz is a shill............and an errand boy for special interests such as Goldman-Sachs

::yawn:: Yes, yes, your opinion is the supreme, objective law of the universe just because you WANT it to be, damn it! Been there, heard that, becoming exponentially more bored with it every time you tell me so.

you certainly haven't put a dent in my opinion of my opinion,

nor I think have you harmed it in the eyes of any objective reader

Trust me, it was never my expectation for you to understand what a complete, drooling moron you are. I confine my goals to the possible.

Your opinion of whether or not others think you're a jackass is every bit as valuable as your opinion that the law is completely different from what it says and how it's always been applied. Come to think of it, it's every bit as valuable as your opinion on any subject you've ever spoken about.

you have devolved into name-calling which is usually a sign you have lost the argument but are unwilling to accept that,...fine.

I am sure though that most unbiased people who may read through these postings will be more convinced by me. I will not respond to you in this thread again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm well aware of what you THOUGHT you were saying. I'm just telling you what you ACTUALLY conveyed.

No amount of leftist desire to be serious and meaningful will actually make it happen. Wishing upon a star will not make you intelligent or relevant.

like a lot of rt-wingers, I have little trust in the rulings of our judicial system......but if they were to rule correctly, logically, and consistently with the Constitution, they would rule that the Goldman-Sachs' errand-boy is not eligible for the presidency, since he was born in Canada.

I actually like some of the things about the facade that Cruz puts on however. His opposition to Obama/Romney care. But there are huge indications its all a show. I believe it was his lead on the government shutdown that ended up just giving a bunch of overpaid federal workers a paid vacation.

Cruz is a shill............and an errand boy for special interests such as Goldman-Sachs

::yawn:: Yes, yes, your opinion is the supreme, objective law of the universe just because you WANT it to be, damn it! Been there, heard that, becoming exponentially more bored with it every time you tell me so.

you certainly haven't put a dent in my opinion of my opinion,

nor I think have you harmed it in the eyes of any objective reader

Trust me, it was never my expectation for you to understand what a complete, drooling moron you are. I confine my goals to the possible.

Your opinion of whether or not others think you're a jackass is every bit as valuable as your opinion that the law is completely different from what it says and how it's always been applied. Come to think of it, it's every bit as valuable as your opinion on any subject you've ever spoken about.

you have devolved into name-calling which is usually a sign you have lost the argument but are unwilling to accept that,...fine.

I am sure though that most unbiased people who may read through these postings will be more convinced by me. I will not respond to you in this thread again.

No, Chuckles, I have completed all the reason- and fact-based arguments, and repeated them multiple times, only to be greeted with, " Didn't hear a thing. THIS is the law, because this is what I WANT the law to be. "

Which means the only thing left now is to point out what an utterly useless fucktard you are.

Please disabuse yourself of the notion that people call you names because they have no arguments. They do it because you're not worth wasting time and energy on.

 

[Syriusly]

Grayson and lots of liberal douche bags don't have the first tiny hint of what "Natural Born Citizen" means.

True- neither do Trump and many, many more Conservative douche bags have any clue what Natural Born Citizen means.

Shame that there are so many idiots who are uninformed.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Lots of Conservatives argue otherwise- of course they are wrong.


Home> Politics
Donald Trump: Sen. Ted Cruz 'Perhaps Not' Eligible for White House 'If' Born in Canada
August 11, 2013
By BENJAMIN BELL
Benjamin Bell More from Benjamin »
Digital Producer
via THIS WEEK

Donald Trump on 'This Week'
Auto Start: On | Off




During an interview for "This Week," real estate mogul Donald Trump questioned whether Texas Sen. Ted Cruz would be eligible for the White House given his Canadian birth.

"If he was born in Canada, perhaps not." Trump told ABC's Jonathan Karl.

"I don't know the circumstances. I heard somebody told me he was born in Canada. That's really his thing," he said.

 

[dcraelin]

like a lot of rt-wingers, I have little trust in the rulings of our judicial system......but if they were to rule correctly, logically, and consistently with the Constitution, they would rule that the Goldman-Sachs' errand-boy is not eligible for the presidency, since he was born in Canada.

I actually like some of the things about the facade that Cruz puts on however. His opposition to Obama/Romney care. But there are huge indications its all a show. I believe it was his lead on the government shutdown that ended up just giving a bunch of overpaid federal workers a paid vacation.

Cruz is a shill............and an errand boy for special interests such as Goldman-Sachs

::yawn:: Yes, yes, your opinion is the supreme, objective law of the universe just because you WANT it to be, damn it! Been there, heard that, becoming exponentially more bored with it every time you tell me so.

you certainly haven't put a dent in my opinion of my opinion,

nor I think have you harmed it in the eyes of any objective reader

Trust me, it was never my expectation for you to understand what a complete, drooling moron you are. I confine my goals to the possible.

Your opinion of whether or not others think you're a jackass is every bit as valuable as your opinion that the law is completely different from what it says and how it's always been applied. Come to think of it, it's every bit as valuable as your opinion on any subject you've ever spoken about.

you have devolved into name-calling which is usually a sign you have lost the argument but are unwilling to accept that,...fine.

I am sure though that most unbiased people who may read through these postings will be more convinced by me. I will not respond to you in this thread again.

No, Chuckles, I have completed all the reason- and fact-based arguments, and repeated them multiple times, only to be greeted with, " Didn't hear a thing. THIS is the law, because this is what I WANT the law to be. "

Which means the only thing left now is to point out what an utterly useless fucktard you are.

Please disabuse yourself of the notion that people call you names because they have no arguments. They do it because you're not worth wasting time and energy on.

you have a real talent for insult........shows you for the scum you are.

doesnt change the fact that the Goldman-Sachs errand-boy is not truly eligible to be president.............

now you probably dont need to worry about the challenge outcome , The "conservatives" on the court showed their bias with the Bush v Gore outcome.

It is the country that should worry if this patsy shill should become president.

 

[Skylar]

first position should be it is self-defined, common sense........what did the people at the time think it meant?.............I think the vast majority at the time would have read it as a person has to be born within the Country.

IF you claim it is some term of art that has to be defined ...then you have to look at legal usage at the time, which was precedent set by British law, law we we had recently rejected really, so this is an inferior fall-back position. That law, SOME, but not all say, would allow British citizens born overseas to a citizen FATHER ONLY, to be citizens, and being just a citizen does not necessarily allow you to be president anyway.

The Constitution does allow rules of naturalization to be written by Congress......that is just for making citizens of non-citizens....it does not really make natural born citizens of non-citizens. In other words that section of the constitution was never designed to define rules for presidential eligibility.

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

::yawn:: Yes, yes, your opinion is the supreme, objective law of the universe just because you WANT it to be, damn it! Been there, heard that, becoming exponentially more bored with it every time you tell me so.

you certainly haven't put a dent in my opinion of my opinion,

nor I think have you harmed it in the eyes of any objective reader

Trust me, it was never my expectation for you to understand what a complete, drooling moron you are. I confine my goals to the possible.

Your opinion of whether or not others think you're a jackass is every bit as valuable as your opinion that the law is completely different from what it says and how it's always been applied. Come to think of it, it's every bit as valuable as your opinion on any subject you've ever spoken about.

you have devolved into name-calling which is usually a sign you have lost the argument but are unwilling to accept that,...fine.

I am sure though that most unbiased people who may read through these postings will be more convinced by me. I will not respond to you in this thread again.

No, Chuckles, I have completed all the reason- and fact-based arguments, and repeated them multiple times, only to be greeted with, " Didn't hear a thing. THIS is the law, because this is what I WANT the law to be. "

Which means the only thing left now is to point out what an utterly useless fucktard you are.

Please disabuse yourself of the notion that people call you names because they have no arguments. They do it because you're not worth wasting time and energy on.

you have a real talent for insult........shows you for the scum you are.

doesnt change the fact that the Goldman-Sachs errand-boy is not truly eligible to be president.............

now you probably dont need to worry about the challenge outcome , The "conservatives" on the court showed their bias with the Bush v Gore outcome.

It is the country that should worry if this patsy shill should become president.

*yawn* I must have missed the point where I gave you the impression that I cared about your approval. Must have been in the same apocryphal conversation where you were told that your opinion trumps written law and precedent.

You do know that when your mommy told you wishes on birthday candles will come true, she wasn't actually serious, right? And this just in: Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, as a matter of fact, given that back then, we were sending diplomats all over Hell's half-acre, trying to build our standing as an independent nation in the eyes of other nations, and given that it took months just for those diplomats to get where they were going, I'm pretty sure our Founding Generation was pretty hip to the idea that US citizens could and would give birth to children off US soil, and still want to retain them to our own nation.

Oh, also, there was that whole "settlers moving West" thing happening. You may have heard about that. Do you really suppose that the Founders planned to repudiate the citizenship of those settlers' offspring simply because they were off fulfilling our "manifest destiny"? I'm gonna guess no.

In fact, I'm not even going to guess. I'm going to cite written law:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

That was passed three years after the Constitution was ratified, and two years after the Bill of Rights was subsequently ratified. It's like they were actually thinking about this shit, or something.

So yeah, apparently Congress DOES get to make laws defining who is a citzen at birth. Huh. Who'da thunk it? Oh, wait, I did.

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

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.

 

[Skylar]

sigh.....as I said citizenship sure..............eligibility for the presidency no.

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Born a U.S. citizen = a natural born citizen. Other than that or being a naturalized citizen, there is no other type of citizen.

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

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.

 

[Skylar]

I studied the topic a bit and found one bizarro exception: Puerto Ricans. Under US law they are 'naturalized citizens at birth'. A classification that warrants a hearty 'what the actual fuck?'

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

 

[washamericom]

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.

the constitution reads natural born, with a grandfather clause.
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.
four if you count toro.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[washamericom]

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.

he's with us now, don't be mean.

 

[Skylar]

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.

 

[washamericom]

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.

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 (as a jury) obligated to interpret constitutional cases of law (that come to them from which they choose), they are at the top of the pyramid, the final word. i think they've been kinda lazy lately...