Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,136
- 2,180
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.people are ok with lying now, lying is the new transparency. the constitution has become more of a guideline, not real rules.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.
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.
Interpreting the constitution is part of the Judcial Power. So says Federalist Paper 78.