is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Skylar]

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born)...

Citizen at birth, does not a natural born citizen make. Being a citizen at birth MAY be a Natural Born Citizen or it may not be... and in the majority of instances it is.

Says who?

Says nature... who formed the underlying concepts intrinsic to the words used to convey the concept...

Yawning.....this shit again? You're not 'nature'. Nor are you quoting 'nature'. You're quoting yourself. And your relativistic personal opinion defines no legal term.

So what else have you got?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

the castro brothers are finally set "a sail" by the people they have persecuted forever .

they RRRRR.... put into a boat...

but, fidel's great grand daughter is with them, about to give birth...

they make it to the florida coast where that beautiful baby is born...

so in 35 years ?? be president ??

Lets consult the Supreme Court, citing English Common Law:

"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.

There you have it. Even if a kid is born to TWO foreign nationals, natural born status follows place of birth.

So you're ascribing would-be 'law' to define the nature of something, where, in the absence of the law... the nature of the circumstance would require that such not to be the case?

ROFLMNAO!

"THE LAW SAYS IT'S NATURAL, THEREFORE IT'S NATURAL!" (Reader... LOL! She literally believes that nonsense... again that's another clue.)

Try this: get the SCOTUS to issue a decision that you'll acquire lift by flapping your arms, then take that decision to the top of any building over 6 stories. Go to the roof and walk to the edge, flap those arms and take that last step over the edge of that building.

IF your reasoning is sound, you will maintain the same distance from the ground as you were working on prior to stepping off the building... if not, then you will likely close with the mass of the earth at the customary 30'/sec/sec.

Now, my reasoning says that the SCOTUS decision will have absolutely no bearing on the natural law which otherwise requires that flapping arms have no potential to acquire lift.

Since there's little chance that you'll be able to testify with regard to your findings, do us a favor and record the experiment... . The hilarity along will make the effort worth while.

OH! If the SCOTUS won't go for it, try the British Crown... if not them, try the UN. One of 'em is bound to take the bait.

 

[Skylar]

the castro brothers are finally set "a sail" by the people they have persecuted forever .

they RRRRR.... put into a boat...

but, fidel's great grand daughter is with them, about to give birth...

they make it to the florida coast where that beautiful baby is born...

so in 35 years ?? be president ??

Lets consult the Supreme Court, citing English Common Law:

"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.

There you have it. Even if a kid is born to TWO foreign nationals, natural born status follows place of birth.

So you're ascribing would-be 'law' to define the nature of something, where, in the absence of the law... the nature of the circumstance would require that such not to be the case?

Keyes, buddy.....you're not nature. You don't speak for nature. Making any argument based on us accepting you as 'nature' more useless idiocy.

Meanwhile, the dictionary, the Supreme Court, historical precedent and English Common Law all contradict your subjective personal opinion on the meaning of 'natural born'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows:

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

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

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by human acts.

The Presidency is the ONLY office which is held to this standard, as the Presidency is the only office which the Constitution requires to defend the principles intrinsic to the constitution, thus where the President were to be loyal to foreign ideas, he could easily turn the nation from adherence to the Constitution, as we have seen time and again from obama, who was born to a Foreign National and who wrote a book informing the readers of such of his loyalties to the foreign ideas of his Father, over the 'negative rights' he finds in the constitution.

Thus the purpose for the phrase Natural Born Citizen, was to preclude, to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent, to sit in the office of the US Presidency.

Thus the requirement was set, to require the President of the United States, singularly to be a citizen, whose citizenship was the natural result of the joining of one male citizen and one female citizen.

What the Left wants you to believe is that the Framers established the requirement that that President of the United States, to merely be a citizen, who happened to be born, naturally, here in the US... Which for all intents and purposes, is roughly that same standard required to hold any Federal office and in no way lends any additional tendency toward promoting any greater alliance to American principle.

Which, is in keeping with the Left's perverse species of reasoning, which has provided us with noteworthy policies as: "The RIGHT to murder pre-born children, claiming such on the lofty moral justification of CHOICE".

LOL! Then there's the policy which requires that Men should marry men, because there is no scientific evidence that human physiology requires that the male is designed to join with the female, thus men joining with men is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

And there's the Economic "SCIENCE!", which says that paying people to NOT WORK, will stimulate those people to seek employment.

The thing to understand is that the Framers set into the law, nearly two and a half centuries ago, that the President of the United States must be a person born from two citizens, one male and one female... who joined together, conceived a child and as a consequence of their union, a new citizen was born.

And that is a threat to the Left on two fronts:

First it shows the Framers recognition of Marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman.

Second, it demonstrates the Framers cognizance that Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles, is a direct threat to the US Constitution and never MORE a threat than where those ideas are intrinsic to the Person designated to defend those principles and the Constitution which set them as the rules by which the country is to be governed.

And THAT defines obama out of eligibility for the Presidency and deals the Sexually Abnormal out of the Marriage equation.

And again, it ignores the dictionary, its own source. This is just getting odd. As the dictionary defines 'natural born'.

When you look up 'natural born', you get this:

Natural born:

1. native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

With native born meaning:

native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Following place of birth.

Which also matches the English Common Law definition, and the definition cited by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark decision. And matches historical precedent with President Chester Arthur, eligible to be president because he was born in the US. Even though his father was Irish-Canadian.

Well that was easy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

the castro brothers are finally set "a sail" by the people they have persecuted forever .

they RRRRR.... put into a boat...

but, fidel's great grand daughter is with them, about to give birth...

they make it to the florida coast where that beautiful baby is born...

so in 35 years ?? be president ??

Lets consult the Supreme Court, citing English Common Law:

"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.

There you have it. Even if a kid is born to TWO foreign nationals, natural born status follows place of birth.

So you're ascribing would-be 'law' to define the nature of something, where, in the absence of the law... the nature of the circumstance would require that such not to be the case?

ROFLMNAO!

"THE LAW SAYS IT'S NATURAL, THEREFORE IT'S NATURAL!" (Reader... LOL! She literally believes that nonsense... again that's another clue.)

Try this: get the SCOTUS to issue a decision that you'll acquire lift by flapping your arms, then take that decision to the top of any building over 6 stories. Go to the roof and walk to the edge, flap those arms and take that last step over the edge of that building.

IF your reasoning is sound, you will maintain the same distance from the ground as you were working on prior to stepping off the building... if not, then you will likely close with the mass of the earth at the customary 30'/sec/sec.

Now, my reasoning says that the SCOTUS decision will have absolutely no bearing on the natural law which otherwise requires that flapping arms have no potential to acquire lift.

Since there's little chance that you'll be able to testify with regard to your findings, do us a favor and record the experiment... . The hilarity along will make the effort worth while.

OH! If the SCOTUS won't go for it, try the British Crown... if not them, try the UN. One of 'em is bound to take the bait.

Keyes, buddy.....you're not nature. You don't speak for nature. Making any argument based on us accepting you as 'nature' more useless idiocy.

True I am not nature, nor do I speak FOR nature.

But like you, I am the consequence of nature and as such I am capable of observing the laws of such.

The difference between you and I, is that in observing nature, I realize that flapping one's arms will not, even potentially produce lift... and YOU, the person who claims that Law establishes the nature of things, DOES... .

And that presents delusion on your part... and FYI: That's BAD!

Ya see scamp, viable cultures do not allow the delusional to speak publicly, let alone set policy based in the idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, which, given your means to access the interwebz and so speak, this is our first clue that Western Culture is no longer viable.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

But like you, I am the consequence of nature and as such I am capable of observing the laws of such.

Um, 'nature' doesn't say a thing about presidential eligibility. You do. And you have no idea what you're talking about. Meanwhile, your subjective personal opinion is contradicted by the dictionary, the Supreme Court, History and English Common Law.

And backed by nothing but you citing yourself as 'nature'.

Do you ever have an argument that isn't you citing yourself as 'nature', 'god', 'objective truth' or some other random Appeal to Authority fallacy? I mean, ever?

You're kind of a one trick pony. That's your first, last and only argument.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows:

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

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

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by humankind.

The Presidency is the ONLY office which is held to this standard, as the Presidency is the only office which the Constitution requires to defend the principles intrinsic to the constitution, thus where the President were to be loyal to foreign ideas, he could easily turn the nation from adherence to the Constitution, as we have seen time and again from obama, who was born to a Foreign National and who wrote a book informing the readers of such of his loyalties to the foreign ideas of his Father, over the 'negative rights' he finds in the constitution.

Thus the purpose for the phrase Natural Born Citizen, was to preclude, to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent, to sit in the office of the US Presidency.

Thus the requirement was set, to require the President of the United States, singularly to be a citizen, whose citizenship was the natural result of the joining of one male citizen and one female citizen.

What the Left wants you to believe is that the Framers established the requirement that that President of the United States, to merely be a citizen, who happened to be born, naturally, here in the US... Which for all intents and purposes, is roughly that same standard required to hold any Federal office and in no way lends any additional tendency toward promoting any greater alliance to American principle.

Which, is in keeping with the Left's perverse species of reasoning, which has provided us with noteworthy policies as: "The RIGHT to murder pre-born children, claiming such on the lofty moral justification of CHOICE".

LOL! Then there's the policy which requires that Men should marry men, because there is no scientific evidence that human physiology requires that the male is designed to join with the female, thus men joining with men is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

And there's the Economic "SCIENCE!", which says that paying people to NOT WORK, will stimulate those people to seek employment.

The thing to understand is that the Framers set into the law, nearly two and a half centuries ago, that the President of the United States must be a person born from two citizens, one male and one female... who joined together, conceived a child and as a consequence of their union, a new citizen was born.

And that is a threat to the Left on two fronts:

First it shows the Framers recognition of Marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman.

Second, it demonstrates the Framers cognizance that Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles, is a direct threat to the US Constitution and never MORE a threat than where those ideas are intrinsic to the Person designated to defend those principles and the Constitution which set them as the rules by which the country is to be governed.

And THAT defines obama out of eligibility for the Presidency and deals the Sexually Abnormal out of the Marriage equation.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows:

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

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

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by human acts.

The Presidency is the ONLY office which is held to this standard, as the Presidency is the only office which the Constitution requires to defend the principles intrinsic to the constitution, thus where the President were to be loyal to foreign ideas, he could easily turn the nation from adherence to the Constitution, as we have seen time and again from obama, who was born to a Foreign National and who wrote a book informing the readers of such of his loyalties to the foreign ideas of his Father, over the 'negative rights' he finds in the constitution.

Thus the purpose for the phrase Natural Born Citizen, was to preclude, to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent, to sit in the office of the US Presidency.

Thus the requirement was set, to require the President of the United States, singularly to be a citizen, whose citizenship was the natural result of the joining of one male citizen and one female citizen.

What the Left wants you to believe is that the Framers established the requirement that that President of the United States, to merely be a citizen, who happened to be born, naturally, here in the US... Which for all intents and purposes, is roughly that same standard required to hold any Federal office and in no way lends any additional tendency toward promoting any greater alliance to American principle.

Which, is in keeping with the Left's perverse species of reasoning, which has provided us with noteworthy policies as: "The RIGHT to murder pre-born children, claiming such on the lofty moral justification of CHOICE".

LOL! Then there's the policy which requires that Men should marry men, because there is no scientific evidence that human physiology requires that the male is designed to join with the female, thus men joining with men is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

And there's the Economic "SCIENCE!", which says that paying people to NOT WORK, will stimulate those people to seek employment.

The thing to understand is that the Framers set into the law, nearly two and a half centuries ago, that the President of the United States must be a person born from two citizens, one male and one female... who joined together, conceived a child and as a consequence of their union, a new citizen was born.

And that is a threat to the Left on two fronts:

First it shows the Framers recognition of Marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman.

Second, it demonstrates the Framers cognizance that Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles, is a direct threat to the US Constitution and never MORE a threat than where those ideas are intrinsic to the Person designated to defend those principles and the Constitution which set them as the rules by which the country is to be governed.

And THAT defines obama out of eligibility for the Presidency and deals the Sexually Abnormal out of the Marriage equation.

And yet again, it ignores the dictionary....which clearly and unambiguously defines 'natural born'.

Natural born:

1. native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

With native born meaning:

native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Following place of birth.

Which also matches the English Common Law definition, and the definition cited by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark decision. And matches historical precedent with President Chester Arthur, eligible to be president because he was born in the US. Even though his father was Irish-Canadian.

Yet it ignores the dictionary, ignores English common law, ignore the Supreme Court, ignores history, and just cites itself as 'nature'.

That's just odd.

 

[Faun]

1- Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

You're such a ******* imbecile that your cobbled definition of natural born citizen excludes all humans.

Does it?

LOL!

So humanity caused and/or 'made' human physiology wherein two distinct, but complimenting genders join in the natural process designed for procreation?

Wow... now that IS news.

My MY! AREN'T we SOMETHIN'?

Conception is a function of nature; of which humanity, in its entirety is a consequence. Which means that Nature MADE us.

But how cool is it that the same people that claim a RIGHT to MURDER the Pre-born Child, believe that WE created Nature.


Anyone need anything else?

Despite your brain-addled drivel, humans make humans. Leave it to a desperate rightard who can't save his dying position to try and say otherwise.

Oh, and by the way, your tortured reasoning, like your cobbled definition of "natural born citizen," speaks nothing towards citizenry.

 

[Faun]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows:

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

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

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by humankind.

The Presidency is the ONLY office which is held to this standard, as the Presidency is the only office which the Constitution requires to defend the principles intrinsic to the constitution, thus where the President were to be loyal to foreign ideas, he could easily turn the nation from adherence to the Constitution, as we have seen time and again from obama, who was born to a Foreign National and who wrote a book informing the readers of such of his loyalties to the foreign ideas of his Father, over the 'negative rights' he finds in the constitution.

Thus the purpose for the phrase Natural Born Citizen, was to preclude, to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent, to sit in the office of the US Presidency.

Thus the requirement was set, to require the President of the United States, singularly to be a citizen, whose citizenship was the natural result of the joining of one male citizen and one female citizen.

What the Left wants you to believe is that the Framers established the requirement that that President of the United States, to merely be a citizen, who happened to be born, naturally, here in the US... Which for all intents and purposes, is roughly that same standard required to hold any Federal office and in no way lends any additional tendency toward promoting any greater alliance to American principle.

Which, is in keeping with the Left's perverse species of reasoning, which has provided us with noteworthy policies as: "The RIGHT to murder pre-born children, claiming such on the lofty moral justification of CHOICE".

LOL! Then there's the policy which requires that Men should marry men, because there is no scientific evidence that human physiology requires that the male is designed to join with the female, thus men joining with men is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

And there's the Economic "SCIENCE!", which says that paying people to NOT WORK, will stimulate those people to seek employment.

The thing to understand is that the Framers set into the law, nearly two and a half centuries ago, that the President of the United States must be a person born from two citizens, one male and one female... who joined together, conceived a child and as a consequence of their union, a new citizen was born.

And that is a threat to the Left on two fronts:

First it shows the Framers recognition of Marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman.

Second, it demonstrates the Framers cognizance that Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles, is a direct threat to the US Constitution and never MORE a threat than where those ideas are intrinsic to the Person designated to defend those principles and the Constitution which set them as the rules by which the country is to be governed.

And THAT defines obama out of eligibility for the Presidency and deals the Sexually Abnormal out of the Marriage equation.

Your cobbled definition, which is found nowhere in the dictionary, still does not require the parents to be of the same citizenship.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Despite your brain-addled drivel, humans make humans.

ROFLMNAO!!

Humans conceive babies, through hormonal impetus designed into the human being, BY NATURE, as a means to trigger their desire for sex. This hormonal impetus promotes the likelihood of conception, serving the biological imperative to perpetuate the species.

But here we have a Leftist, claiming that humans 'make humans'.

Now keep in mind Reader, that the Ideological Left is the cult which is telling you that 'Sex is not even about reproduction'. LOL! NO NO! The Left is telling you that: "Sex is about your entertainment."

Then, when you conceive a baby, despite your best efforts to engage in coitus without conceiving, the Left is telling you that YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL THE BABY WHICH IS STILL IN ITS OWN MOTHER'S WOMB!

They're also the one telling you that sexual behavior which deviates 180 degrees from the human physiological standard, is PERFECTLY NORMAL. Rejecting that the design of the human being in NO WAY establishes a physiological standard. And even if it did, it doesn't mean anything, anyway.

They're the same one's who told you that sound, actuarial lending principle was RACIST! Forcing the lending markets to substitute the sustaining principles, with their perverse notions of FAIRNESS... Defined as "Everyone deserves to own their own home."

Of course, it turns out that everyone does NOT deserve to own their own home. And by their actions, the Left who is telling you that the Constitution is NOT setting a higher standard... CRIPPLED the viability of the international financial markets.

They're the same ones who from there, decided to just create TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to buy securities, pay people to not work and soak up the financial slack which they also created... which has not even BEGUN to turn toward its inevitable and ever so unenviable consequence.

And it is that same species of reasoning which is here to tell you that the higher standard for the President, is roughly the same as the lower standard... required for everyone else.

And this in the wake of the catastrophe that resulted from ignoring the Constitution and embracing the idiocy that anyone can be President of the US as long as there is circumstantial evidence that they were born in the USA.

When the Constitution does not say that a President must be BORN IN THE US...

The requirement is that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

The purpose behind increasing the standard for the President; requiring they must be a Natural Born Citizen was to preclude, to the extent possible, the division of loyalties common to individuals of dual citizenship, because they are born to people from two distinct cultures, two nations, two sets of distinct ideas, ideas which are FOREIGN and often HOSTILE TO American principle... which is to say the Principles which define and sustain the US Constitution; principles which the President ALONE is sworn to DEFEND!

The US had just split from England, a nation to which the people of the US had largely stemmed. Yet these were two entirely different ideas... in terms of what citizenship means. And the concern was that individuals of split loyalty may be born here, but because of their parentage, they may not have sufficient respect for the principles on which the constitution rests and as a result, due to the necessary powers of the President, they could injure the Constitution's means to guide the nation. And we have seen that come to pass in spades in the illegitimate, would-be presidency of obama; the progeny of a Foreign National, who advocated Foreign Ideas which are Hostile to American Principle... . And who produced a son intent upon "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

The Founders who framed the US Constitution required the President of the United States to be a "Natural Born Citizen"; which is to say a persons who's citizenship is the natural consequence of citizenship... wherein TWO Citizens Join together; one male Citizen naturally joins with one female citizen, naturally conceiving a child, who because THE PARENTS ARE CITIZENS AND WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILD>>>

THE CHILD IS BY THE NATURE OF ITS BIRTH:
A CITIZEN!​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows:

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

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

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by humankind.

Which is to say 'not caused by law, but by the nature of the citizen's birth'.

It is decidedly NOT to say that Humanity does not respond to the natural inclination to procreate, but that we have no means to do otherwise, as such is our nature... it is what we are designed to do.

We do not MAKE Human beings, we conceive them as a consequence of OUR NATURE.

And when two human beings who are citizens of a country, join together, one male citizen and one female citizen... when they have a baby as a natural consequence of their union, the NATURAL RESULT IS: ANOTHER CITIZEN.

In this way, the Framers sought to protect the Constitution from Foreign Ideas, which are going to be taught to children born to people born in Foreign Lands... Such as England.

A nation which has the same language as the US and from where the US stems, but which the ideas of the respective national foundations are STARKLY DIFFERENT.

By setting the higher standard for the Presidency, the Framers sought to defend the integrity of the US Constitution and the would-be presidency of obama is a perfect example of what the Framers sought to prevent and the would-be interpretation which the obama cult is using...

AND IT IS FROM THERE WHERE WE CAN KNOW, THAT SUCH IS NOT THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FRAMERS USED.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

there is a 3rd way ....at least if you insist on mutating the word naturalization...or words natural born....automatic naturalization at birth to us citizens abroad.

Nope. You simply suck at paraphrasing. Here's the same sentence that has profoundly confused you 3 times. Try actually reading it this time:

"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."

There's no such thing as 'naturalization at birth'. You made that up. And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

just because 8 of 11 were there does not mean they didnt change their minds......

Its a far better indication of their intent than you pretending to be the founders. And the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrated that natural born status is subject to statutory law.

I notice you didnt quote the whole post......hmmm

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

there is a 3rd way ....at least if you insist on mutating the word naturalization...or words natural born....automatic naturalization at birth to us citizens abroad.

Nope. You simply suck at paraphrasing. Here's the same sentence that has profoundly confused you 3 times. Try actually reading it this time:

"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."

There's no such thing as 'naturalization at birth'. You made that up. And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

just because 8 of 11 were there does not mean they didnt change their minds......

Its a far better indication of their intent than you pretending to be the founders. And the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrated that natural born status is subject to statutory law.

I notice you didnt quote the whole post......hmmm

I notice you've never been able to quote me saying anything about 'automatic naturalization at birth'. That blithering idiocy was you, citing yourself.

I've made my position on the matter perfectly clear:

"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."

And feel free to quote me.

 

[Faun]

Despite your brain-addled drivel, humans make humans.

ROFLMNAO!!

Humans conceive babies, through hormonal impetus designed into the human being, BY NATURE, as a means to trigger their desire for sex. This hormonal impetus promotes the likelihood of conception, serving the biological imperative to perpetuate the species.

But here we have a Leftist, claiming that humans 'make humans'.

Now keep in mind Reader, that the Ideological Left is the cult which is telling you that 'Sex is not even about reproduction'. LOL! NO NO! The Left is telling you that: "Sex is about your entertainment."

Then, when you conceive a baby, despite your best efforts to engage in coitus without conceiving, the Left is telling you that YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL THE BABY WHICH IS STILL IN ITS OWN MOTHER'S WOMB!

They're also the one telling you that sexual behavior which deviates 180 degrees from the human physiological standard, is PERFECTLY NORMAL. Rejecting that the design of the human being in NO WAY establishes a physiological standard. And even if it did, it doesn't mean anything, anyway.

They're the same one's who told you that sound, actuarial lending principle was RACIST! Forcing the lending markets to substitute the sustaining principles, with their perverse notions of FAIRNESS... Defined as "Everyone deserves to own their own home."

Of course, it turns out that everyone does NOT deserve to own their own home. And by their actions, the Left who is telling you that the Constitution is NOT setting a higher standard... CRIPPLED the viability of the international financial markets.

They're the same ones who from there, decided to just create TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to buy securities, pay people to not work and soak up the financial slack which they also created... which has not even BEGUN to turn toward its inevitable and ever so unenviable consequence.

And it is that same species of reasoning which is here to tell you that the higher standard for the President, is roughly the same as the lower standard... required for everyone else.

And this in the wake of the catastrophe that resulted from ignoring the Constitution and embracing the idiocy that anyone can be President of the US as long as there is circumstantial evidence that they were born in the USA.

When the Constitution does not say that a President must be BORN IN THE US...

The requirement is that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

The purpose behind increasing the standard for the President; requiring they must be a Natural Born Citizen was to preclude, to the extent possible, the division of loyalties common to individuals of dual citizenship, because they are born to people from two distinct cultures, two nations, two sets of distinct ideas, ideas which are FOREIGN and often HOSTILE TO American principle... which is to say the Principles which define and sustain the US Constitution; principles which the President ALONE is sworn to DEFEND!

The US had just split from England, a nation to which the people of the US had largely stemmed. Yet these were two entirely different ideas... in terms of what citizenship means. And the concern was that individuals of split loyalty may be born here, but because of their parentage, they may not have sufficient respect for the principles on which the constitution rests and as a result, due to the necessary powers of the President, they could injure the Constitution's means to guide the nation. And we have seen that come to pass in spades in the illegitimate, would-be presidency of obama; the progeny of a Foreign National, who advocated Foreign Ideas which are Hostile to American Principle... . And who produced a son intent upon "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

The Founders who framed the US Constitution required the President of the United States to be a "Natural Born Citizen"; which is to say a persons who's citizenship is the natural consequence of citizenship... wherein TWO Citizens Join together; one male Citizen naturally joins with one female citizen, naturally conceiving a child, who because THE PARENTS ARE CITIZENS AND WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILD>>>

THE CHILD IS BY THE NATURE OF ITS BIRTH:
A CITIZEN!​

Dayam, that's some long rant, which dragged you into the arena of abortion though that has nothing to do with this, but yet ... humans still make humans. Nothing contained in your diatribe alters that fact.

And no, an individual born in the U.S. does not require both parents to be U.S. citizens in order to be a natural born citizen. I don't care what color font you print that in or how big you make it.

 

[Faun]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows:

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

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

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by humankind.

Which is to say 'not caused by law, but by the nature of the citizen's birth'.

It is decidedly NOT to say that Humanity does not respond to the natural inclination to procreate, but that we have no means to do otherwise, as such is our nature... it is what we are designed to do.

We do not MAKE Human beings, we conceive them as a consequence of OUR NATURE.

And when two human beings who are citizens of a country, join together, one male citizen and one female citizen... when they have a baby as a natural consequence of their union, the NATURAL RESULT IS: ANOTHER CITIZEN.

In this way, the Framers sought to protect the Constitution from Foreign Ideas, which are going to be taught to children born to people born in Foreign Lands... Such as England.

A nation which has the same language as the US and from where the US stems, but which the ideas of the respective national foundations are STARKLY DIFFERENT.

By setting the higher standard for the Presidency, the Framers sought to defend the integrity of the US Constitution and the would-be presidency of obama is a perfect example of what the Framers sought to prevent and the would-be interpretation which the obama cult is using...

AND IT IS FROM THERE WHERE WE CAN KNOW, THAT SUCH IS NOT THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FRAMERS USED.

The understanding of the Framers would have been English common law, which held anyone born within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom was a British subject -- including foreigners.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've made my position on the matter perfectly clear:

"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."

And feel free to quote me.

Current law?

So, then you're citing Citizenship by Statute or 'Citizenship by Law'... Which is perfectly fine to establish citizenship, isn't it?

Of course, the issue is NOT Citizenship, it is the higher eligibility standard established in the US Constitution which requires the President be a Natural Born Citizen, where the standard seeks to preclude a DIVISION OF LOYALTIES, common to citizens born to Foreign Nationals...

You've repeatedly spoken to the legal precedent regarding one sense of the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". Which you demand is the only sense... and you demand that the sense which speaks to who is a citizen and why also MUST speak to the higher standard set upon the eligibility for the Office of the Presidency, the Keeper of the Constitution... per the US Constitution, itself... which it clearly is not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The understanding of the Framers would have been English common law, which held anyone born within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom was a British subject -- including foreigners.

The understanding of the Founders, would have been the literal meaning of the words they used.

The problem that you have is that the Framers did not set the Natural Born Citizen standard on Members of Congress, or the Judiciary... did they?

What your reasoning suggest is that the Framers required that all other officers be citizens and the President to be citizen also... and to drive that point home, they required that the President had to be born, naturally.... in the United States. As if there were some alternative to natural child birth in the 18th Century.

However, the problem of that day, which is just as relevant in our time, is that individuals born in the US are often born to foreign nationals... meaning individuals who have been raised and educated upon ideas which are often hostile to the ideas and principles that define America. Such an individual may, as a result, harbor animosity toward the US Constitution, they may be aware of American Principles and simply reject the existence of those, otherwise self evident laws. They may find that the Bill of Rights, is a treatise of 'negative rights', which preclude the government from acting as the benevolent patron that THEIR IDEAS require of governance. Thus where elected by a fit of popular whimsy, such an individual would upon their victory vow to his constituency his intention to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES ...".

Which is not what the US Constitution requires of the President. The Constitution requires the President to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution. And in THAT we see the profound wisdom behind the REASON that John Jay, during the Constitutional Convention wrote President George Washington asking him for a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The higher standard for the Presidency reaches beyond the distinction of simply being born in the United States thus a citizen by birth, by virtue of law... and the naturalized citizen, also a citizen by virtue of law... The Higher Standard speaks to citizenship which comes as a natural consequence OF citizenship.

In THAT the Framers set into practice a standard which precluded, to the extent possible, the potential for a President who would be influenced by foreign ideas hostile to the principles that define American principle; principles which the US Constitution is designed to sustain.

You disagree... but your disagreement, at BEST stands upon common law which DID NOT consider the essential criteria relevant to the US President... given that such was established 500 years prior to the existence of such... and subsequent decisions, regarding the phrase which did not consider the ramifications of the decision ON THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UNIQUE STANDARD SET TO DEFEND THE UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS SET UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus your disagreement is obtuse as it is, irrational.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows: ... .

And yet again, it ignores the dictionary ... That's just odd.

Odd? Yeah... that IS odd.