is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Steve_McGarrett]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

Cruz is a statutory citizen, not a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born.

So the Act of 1790 recognized that the children of US >Citizens< BORN outside the US, we 'natural born'?

Are you SURE that the Act of 1790 did not say: Citizen; as in a child born to > A < US Citizen... was a natural born citizen?

I ask because if it speaks to the Union of a male US citizen and a female US Citizen, who have joined and subsequently conceived a child (OKA: CITIZENS) which happened to be born outside of the US borders; then that act literally confirms the obvious... and by 'obvious' I mean the meaning of the phrase, as defined by the summing of the definition of the individual words, which is what those who issued the phrase would have reasonably expected, as that is the basis on which they issued the phrase.

The Premise of your argument is perverse.

You claim that geography is all that is relevant to the Natural Born Citizen Requirement. When in every instance of every discussion of this issue, speaks to birth within US borders, ASSUMES THE PARENTS TO BE CITIZENS thus the birth is by its nature the consequence of citizenship, therein just as naturally, the joining of one male citizen with one female citizen: PRODUCES A CITIZEN.

The reason for this threshold is to preclude the dangers intrinsic to dual loyalties to the Principles on which the US CONSTITUTION RESTS.

The obama exercise IN AND OF ITSELF, PROVE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CONCERNS ON WHICH THE STANDARD REST. Wherein the dual loyalties intrinsic to the DREAMS OF obama's FATHER... provided his STRONG INTENT TO "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!".

Which is precisely what the Framers sought to PREVENT.

 

[Skylar]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

Cruz is a statutory citizen, not a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen.

Cruz is a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen at birth. Current laws only recognize natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind.

And despite your absurd claims otherwise, a citizen at birth is not 'naturalized'. Nor ever has been.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

 

[Skylar]

So the Act of 1790 recognized that the children of US >Citizens< BORN outside the US, we 'natural born'?

Are you SURE that the Act of 1790 did not say: Citizen; as in a child born to > A < US Citizen... was a natural born citizen?

If children born to US citizens was already a natural born citizen, as you claim, why then did Congress extend the definition of natural born citizenship to those who you claim already had it?

As usual, your claims make absolutely no sense.

We have English Common Law, the Supreme Court and the dictionary all affirming that natural born status follows PLACE of birth. And you insist it doesn't.

Your arguments always devolve into the same blithering nonsense: you desperately trying to convince us that you are an authoritative source on whatever you're discussing. And nobody buying your bullshit.

So what else have you got?

 

[Skylar]

Let me ask ya this...

Would a US Citizen with dual citizenship be eligible for the office of the Presidency?

Dual citizenship isn't recognized by the US. So under US law, no citizen could have dual citizenship.

Thus, your hypothetical has no relevance to our system of law. And our system of law is the only one that matters in determining natural born citizenship.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

The Reader needs to understand that the Above Cited Contributor is arguing SOLELY in defense of obama's eligibility.

She has no other concern for any other element of the discussion.

In her final point, she claims that Cruz is a dual citizen.

In no rendition of reality, would ANY individual who is a citizen of another nation, be eligible for the Presidency.

And we can take as evidence proving THAT is the effort that this entire thread is based upon and THAT is the effort by Cruz to scuttle his Canadian citizenship.

obama is NOT eligible for the Presidency... thus his would-be Presidency is ILLEGITIMATE.

And that's all there is to it.

She feels that if JUST THE PREMISE that Cruz is eligible, that he case that obama is eligible will be made.

And in terms of popular convention... she's correct. In terms of reality, thus truth... neither Cruz, nor obama (and I HATE that there is ANY context wherein Cruz is similar to the reprobate obama) are eligible.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So the Act of 1790 recognized that the children of US >Citizens< BORN outside the US, we 'natural born'?

Are you SURE that the Act of 1790 did not say: Citizen; as in a child born to > A < US Citizen... was a natural born citizen?

If children born to US citizens was already a natural born citizen, as you claim, why then did Congress extend the definition of natural born citizenship to those who you claim already had it?

Because of you... or people like you at the time, who claimed otherwise. So like all valid legal code, such is precisely aligned with natural principle... but because idiots exist, such often requires CLARIFICATION... as a means to assist the Intellectually Less Fortunate, 'understand' the otherwise obvious.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader needs to understand that the Above Cited Contributor is arguing SOLELY in defense of obama's eligibility.

The 1790 Naturalization Act is pristinely irrelevant to Obama, who was born in the US. And consequently was a natural born citizen at birth.

With natural born status following place of birth according to English Common Law, the Supreme Court, and dictionary.

You ignore all three. So?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Reader needs to understand that the Above Cited Contributor is arguing SOLELY in defense of obama's eligibility.

The 1790 Naturalization Act is pristinely irrelevant to Obama, who was born in the US.

Sadly, having been born to a foreign national father, obama's birth did NOT naturally produce a US Citizen free of dual loyalties. Which is the PURPOSE OF THE STANDARD: Natural Born Citizen.

But your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

So the Act of 1790 recognized that the children of US >Citizens< BORN outside the US, we 'natural born'?

Are you SURE that the Act of 1790 did not say: Citizen; as in a child born to > A < US Citizen... was a natural born citizen?

If children born to US citizens was already a natural born citizen, as you claim, why then did Congress extend the definition of natural born citizenship to those who you claim already had it?

Because of you... or people like you at the time, who claimed otherwise.

If parentage was the sole and exclusive basis of natural born citizenship, as you imagine.....then who would claim otherwise?

If, however, PLACE of birth was the basis of natural born citizenship, then a law that extends natural born status to those born outside the US would make perfect sense. As such folks they weren't recognized as natural born citizens.

So lets total up all the sources you have to ignore to cling to your little conspiracy: English Common Law, the 1790 Naturalization Act, the Supreme Court, and the dictionary.

And instead offer us your subjective personal opinion as 'fact'. I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

 

[Skylar]

Sadly, having been born to a foreign national father, obama's birth did NOT naturally produce a US Citizen free of dual loyalties. Which is the PURPOSE OF THE STANDARD: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. English common law recognizes PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark v. US recognized PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status. The dictionary recognizes PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status.

Natural born:

1.native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

And when you follow native born you get this:

Native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Smiling.....but you know better than all of them, huh?

But your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your tell already? You didn't make it 5 posts before starting in with your bizarre 'summary declarations of victory' as you run.

Well that was easy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If parentage was the sole and exclusive basis of natural born citizenship, as you imagine.....then who would claim otherwise?

She states, even as she claims otherwise... .

What is the purpose for the standard: Natural Born Citizen?

I mean you claim that every objective standard provides that LOCATION is all that is relevant. Then in 1783 two British Subjects could have been sent to the US by Old King George... BIRTHED A CHILD, had his birth recorded and, subsequently returned to England, been raised on English tenets and returned to the US 20 years later and elected President, in the next Election past his 35th birthday, having met all of the requirements.

Do ya 'feel' that this would be in keeping with the premise of the Framers who set that standard?

(Enjoy the squirm Reader... it's going to be a twisted rationalization!)

 

[Skylar]

If parentage was the sole and exclusive basis of natural born citizenship, as you imagine.....then who would claim otherwise?

She states, even as she claims otherwise... .

I'm not the one that says that parentage establishes place of birth. That would be you citing yourself.

Contradicting you is English Common law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Supreme Court and the dictionary.

Now why would I ignore them all and instead believe you?

I mean you claim that every objective standard provides that LOCATION is all that is relevant.

You seem confused. I'm not quoting myself. That's the kind of silly nonsense you do.

I'm citing English Common Law, the Supreme Court and the dictionary. The latter of which you already insisted was authoritative....until it contradicted you.

And then you ran and ran and ran, ignoring your own source. Good times! So you run from the dictionary. How do things fair for you in the Supreme Court?

Not well:

"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."

And what does English Common Law say on the topic? The Wong Kim Ark court tells us:

"The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark LII Legal Information Institute

But you know better than English Common Law, the USSC, and the dictionary?

Smiling....nope.

 

[Faun]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

I dont see how you can keep saying naturalization is natural born

I've said no such thing. In fact, I've said quite the opposite:

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

A citizen at birth is not 'naturalized'.

....if the naturalization act of 1790 said that....it was wrong....probably just a mistake in wording.....regardless....they didn't have the ability to change the Constitution by legislation.

Says you. Yet 8 of the 11 members of the committee on eligibility requirements for the President in the Constitutional convention were members of the first congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act.

They never objected to extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.

I don't consider you citing you to be an authoritative source on the 'will of the founders'.

and quit up "follows place of birth" then .....it hurts your own argument.

Not at all. As the English common law definition of natural born has no effect on later legislative acts that extended the meaning of natural born. My argument is as simple as 'before and after'.

and this is the last thing I will say on the subject to you...you have proven yourself impervious to logic

Says you, citing you. And your source kinda sucks.

They also changed the verbiage in the Naturalization Act of 1795 to change "natural born citizen" to "citizen."

 

[Skylar]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

I dont see how you can keep saying naturalization is natural born

I've said no such thing. In fact, I've said quite the opposite:

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

A citizen at birth is not 'naturalized'.

....if the naturalization act of 1790 said that....it was wrong....probably just a mistake in wording.....regardless....they didn't have the ability to change the Constitution by legislation.

Says you. Yet 8 of the 11 members of the committee on eligibility requirements for the President in the Constitutional convention were members of the first congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act.

They never objected to extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.

I don't consider you citing you to be an authoritative source on the 'will of the founders'.

and quit up "follows place of birth" then .....it hurts your own argument.

Not at all. As the English common law definition of natural born has no effect on later legislative acts that extended the meaning of natural born. My argument is as simple as 'before and after'.

and this is the last thing I will say on the subject to you...you have proven yourself impervious to logic

Says you, citing you. And your source kinda sucks.

They also changed the verbiage in the Naturalization Act of 1795 to change "natural born citizen" to "citizen."

Yup. Demonstrating elegantly that natural born status is definitely within the influence of US statutory law. As the 1st and 3rd congress extended and retracted the meaning.

 

[Faun]

Noo. His publicist listed it inaccurately on some propaganda piece like for a dust jacket?

So its just you citing yourself as the supreme constitutional authority on the meaning of 'natural born' again?

How about Webster's Dictionary?

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something

Born: existing as a result of birth

Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state...

With me so far?

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: As a consequence of the nature of existing as a result of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state.

Now that's a lot to take in for you. But you take your time. Do you see how the citizenship is a natural consequence of the birth, stemming from the joining of one male and one female citizen? And this without regard to the law, or where the birth occurred... the citizenship is a natural consequence of BEING BORN TO CITIZENS.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about any of it... yet there you are completely stymied by it.

I expect that there's a clue in there, somewhere.

How come you refuse to provide a link to where you got that definition from for "natural?" Is it because you just made it up yourself? Google can't even locate it...

No results found for "a consequence of the nature of something".

And don't even pretend you don't see this post.

 

[washamericom]

i'm going to call this the zombie eligibility thread

 

[washamericom]

i'm going to call this the zombie eligibility thread

or eligibility and the undead...

now i wish de vatel never was ever born, natural or otherwise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sadly, having been born to a foreign national father, obama's birth did NOT naturally produce a US Citizen free of dual loyalties. Which is the PURPOSE OF THE STANDARD: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. English common law recognizes PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark v. US recognized PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status. The dictionary recognizes PLACE of birth as establishing natural born status.

Natural born:

1.native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

And when you follow native born you get this:

Native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Smiling.....but you know better than all of them, huh?

But your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your tell already? You didn't make it 5 posts before starting in with your bizarre 'summary declarations of victory' as you run.

Well that was easy.

Dictionary.com utilizes contributors definitions as a resource.

And actual Dictionary (Webster's Collegiate 2015 unabridged) defines Natural-Born: having a specified status or character by birth <a natural-born describer with a memory for details — Ernestine Evans><she's a natural-born nurse — Winston Churchill>; especially : having the legal status of citizen or subject <no person except a natural-born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president — U.S. Constitution>.

The word 'native' was in common use in the late 18th century and where the word 'native' would have been relevant, it would have been used.

'Wong' was not considering eligibility for President, thus is irrelevant to discussions which are... that the decision used the phrase, is irrelevant.

And with regard to British Common Law, the phrase being relevant to BEING BORN WITHIN THE BORDER IMPLIES THAT THE BIRTH WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE LIVIG WITHIN THE BORDER: OKA: SUBJECTS OF THE BRITISH CROWN, which we can extrapolate out to US Citizens, where, WHEN THE PURPOSE OF THE PHRASE IS CONSIDERED: "DUAL LOYALTIES"... Your interpretation FAILS AGAIN!