Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And "would most likely include" isn't definitive no matter how badly you seem to think it is. This is like the 5th time now that all you have done is re-post the same stupid fucking claim.I agreeThe only way the issue can be settled once and for all is through a Supreme Court ruling brought about by a lower court ruling or action of congress. Otherwise, the qualification of any presidential candidate born outside the US will be in doubt by many.
Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.The CRS is much like the CBO, an advisor to congress. The CBO provides information on budgetary matters and the CRS on legal.
'pretty much neutral'?
The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
If congress should act to nullify the decision of the electoral college because of an interpretation of the natural citizen requirement, you can bet SCOTUS would use their power of judicial review to review congress's action. One the 4 criteria SCOTUS uses to select cases is the importance to the nation. It would be hard to imagine that the court would not consider this case of utmost importance. This was a major criteria in the court decisions to hear Bush v Gore, US v Nixon, and Row v Wade.Well, that's not what the amendment says, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify....." The amendment lays out the procedure to be following but it does not give congress the authority to make that decision.The 20th Amendment grants Congress the power to disqualify the President elect if they determine he/she fails to meet the requirements as set by the Constitution.So where in the constitution does it give congress the authority to rule on who is qualified to be president?
The real question is two fold
- Would Congress assume that authority? Since it is not defined Congress could be tempted- especially if there was a real controversy- which so far there really isn't.
- If Congress did assume that authority- and then did reject a President- would the Supreme Court then assert that it has the authority- either to determine who is eligible- or to overturn Congress election count. Frankly none of us know for certain about that- I would have at one point said it was a strictly political issue and the court would not interfere- BUT- Bush v. Gore undermines the argument that there is no chance the Supreme Court would step in.
Who do you suppose has the power to disqualify the President elect?Well, that's not what the amendment says, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify....." The amendment lays out the procedure to be following but it does not give congress the authority to make that decision.
And "would most likely include" isn't definitive no matter how badly you seem to think it is. This is like the 5th time now that all you have done is re-post the same stupid fucking claim.I agreeThe only way the issue can be settled once and for all is through a Supreme Court ruling brought about by a lower court ruling or action of congress. Otherwise, the qualification of any presidential candidate born outside the US will be in doubt by many.
Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.The CRS is much like the CBO, an advisor to congress. The CBO provides information on budgetary matters and the CRS on legal.
'pretty much neutral'?
The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
You came to all that over the simple phrase from the CRS report: it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.The 2 state judges conclusions have no effect other than allowing for Cruz to be on their state ballot. Their conclusion that he is a "natural-born citizen" is but dicta and sets no precedent, is not holding in any way, and is not binding on any federal court.And I have already addressed this, would most likely include is by no means definitive, it is conjecture based on one recent dissenting judges opinion as interpreted by the author.The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
No more 'conjecture' than the paper written by one professor that you cited.
So far the CRS report has accurately predicted the decisions- based on merit- of the two judges that have reviewed the issue and issued decisions.
The CRS report is non-biased and gives both views, narrow interpretation and broad interpretation, in which the outcome is inconclusive. All the report says is it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.
Let us review:
You provided a paper by a Law Professor and said that demonstrates why Cruz is not eligible.
And then you turn around and say the opinions by two judges- who actually were judging a case- and the Congressional Research Service should be ignored.
And despite your mischaracterization- the CRS report says much more than that- why be so coy about what the CRS conclusion is?
The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.
SMFH, your local community Jr College has remedial English Comprehension classes, you should look into it.Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.
Huh??? Did they NOT read the 20th Amendment???
Maybe you need to go inform them that this is most certainly a settled issue!
I never said you claimed it was definitive. All I said was would most likely include is hardly definitive. he report being pretty much neutral is in regards to the report giving both a narrow and broad interpretation as I stated previously. Why Ted Cruz Will NOT Win A Contested ConventionI never claimed it is 'definitive'- you are the one who keeps claiming that the CSR report doesn't say what it says- the CRS saying 'would most likely include' is hardly 'pretty much neutral'
Here I'll give the narrow viewNot definitive- but hardly neutral
“the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
SMFH Their opinions only allow for his name to be on the State ballot, they are not precedent, holding, nor binding, if they were then no other state court would ever need to hear another case about it which is also why the NJ Judge pretty much rebuked the Penn Judge. State judges get things wrong quite frequently, which is why there are numerous State Supreme Court cases, to include SCOTUS opinion, correcting them. Their opinions are nothing more then dicta.Of course the two judges who have ruled on the merits of the case- they have provided definitive judgements which happen to mirror the opinion of the CRS.
I have no idea because neither the constitution, nor congress has made that clear which is not to surprising since most Americans in our early history rarely if every traveled outside the country. The issue never came up until 1880 when there were rumors that Chester Arthur, the vice president nominee for president was rumored to have been born in Canada. In 1964, Barry Goldwater, the republican nominee for president faced qualification accusations because he was born in the Arizona Territory. In 1968, democrats questioned the qualifications of George Romney, a republican presidential candidate born in Chihuahua, Mexico. Senator John McCain, republican nominee for president faced questions because he was born in the Panama Canal ZoneWho do you suppose has the power to disqualify the President elect?Well, that's not what the amendment says, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify....." The amendment lays out the procedure to be following but it does not give congress the authority to make that decision.
This is already known, to which Cruz is even more unique than any of them.I have no idea because neither the constitution, nor congress has made that clear which is not to surprising since most Americans in our early history rarely if every traveled outside the country. The issue never came up until 1880 when there were rumors that Chester Arthur, the vice president nominee for president was rumored to have been born in Canada. In 1964, Barry Goldwater, the republican nominee for president faced qualification accusations because he was born in the Arizona Territory. In 1968, democrats questioned the qualifications of George Romney, a republican presidential candidate born in Chihuahua, Mexico. Senator John McCain, republican nominee for president faced questions because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone
That would solve a lot, wouldn't it.It seems to me, the simple solution would be for Congress to make the Federal Election Commission responsible for certifying that a candidate met the constitutional eligibility requirement. If the candidate failed to qualify, he or she could take the case to federal court. In this way, the issue could be settle before the first primary and the campaigns could focus on real issues that concerned voters.
SMFH, your local community Jr College has remedial English Comprehension classes, you should look into it.Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.
Huh??? Did they NOT read the 20th Amendment???
Maybe you need to go inform them that this is most certainly a settled issue!
So you are unable to discern between the conversation and then you come back with thisSMFH, your local community Jr College has remedial English Comprehension classes, you should look into it.Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.
Huh??? Did they NOT read the 20th Amendment???
Maybe you need to go inform them that this is most certainly a settled issue!
And you need to seek out a good ventriloquist school because being able to talk out of both sides of your mouth that way, you could make a fortune at it! One minute, it's unclear and hasn't been settled definitively-- next minute, it's a Constitutional amendment!
retort making yourself look the 
. I have to give you props, when you go all dumb fuck, you really put everything into it. 
I never said you claimed it was definitive. All I said was would most likely include is hardly definitive. he report being pretty much neutral is in regards to the report giving both a narrow and broad interpretation as I stated previously. Why Ted Cruz Will NOT Win A Contested ConventionI never claimed it is 'definitive'- you are the one who keeps claiming that the CSR report doesn't say what it says- the CRS saying 'would most likely include' is hardly 'pretty much neutral'
Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.
Here I'll give the narrow viewNot definitive- but hardly neutral
“the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
From the report:
The existence of these earlier cases, including the Supreme Court’s characterization in Wong Kim Ark of statutory citizenship of those born abroad, raise interesting contentions and considerations that have not necessarily been definitively resolved with regard to the “natural born” citizenship status ̶for purposes of presidential eligibility—of those who have obtained U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.
Cruz's problem isn't his eligibility. Cruz's problem is that he is very unlikable. And creepy, can't forget creepy.
I have no idea because neither the constitution, nor congress has made that clear which is not to surprising since most Americans in our early history rarely if every traveled outside the country. The issue never came up until 1880 when there were rumors that Chester Arthur, the vice president nominee for president was rumored to have been born in Canada. In 1964, Barry Goldwater, the republican nominee for president faced qualification accusations because he was born in the Arizona Territory. In 1968, democrats questioned the qualifications of George Romney, a republican presidential candidate born in Chihuahua, Mexico. Senator John McCain, republican nominee for president faced questions because he was born in the Panama Canal ZoneWho do you suppose has the power to disqualify the President elect?Well, that's not what the amendment says, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify....." The amendment lays out the procedure to be following but it does not give congress the authority to make that decision.
It seems to me, the simple solution would be for Congress to make the Federal Election Commission responsible for certifying that a candidate met the constitutional eligibility requirement. If the candidate failed to qualify, he or she could take the case to federal court. In this way, the issue could be settle before the first primary and the campaigns could focus on real issues that concerned voters.
Five other presidential “birther” controversies from American history
The Pennsylvania case of Eliott v Cruz is noted as an Opinion not Reported, meaning it holds absolutely no legal weight, it is nothing but a memorandum. It only allows for Cruz to be on the states ballot. Sorry.I never said you claimed it was definitive. All I said was would most likely include is hardly definitive. he report being pretty much neutral is in regards to the report giving both a narrow and broad interpretation as I stated previously. Why Ted Cruz Will NOT Win A Contested ConventionI never claimed it is 'definitive'- you are the one who keeps claiming that the CSR report doesn't say what it says- the CRS saying 'would most likely include' is hardly 'pretty much neutral'
Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.
Here I'll give the narrow viewNot definitive- but hardly neutral
“the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”
From the report:
The existence of these earlier cases, including the Supreme Court’s characterization in Wong Kim Ark of statutory citizenship of those born abroad, raise interesting contentions and considerations that have not necessarily been definitively resolved with regard to the “natural born” citizenship status ̶for purposes of presidential eligibility—of those who have obtained U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.
And again- as I pointed out each time- hardly 'neutral' as you claimed
Your quote is from the body of the analysis- my quote is from the Conclusion
The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.
242
The technical constitutional meaning (influenced by the corpus of British law, both common law and long
-standing statutory law), as well as the meaning of the term in both the general legal lexicon and its common usage, appear to have converged on a seeming consensus that “natural born” means having a particular attribute or nature “at birth,” as opposed to subsequently obtaining such attribute.
Let us know when you can find any judge who agrees with you.
Meanwhile- the only two judges who have reviewed it both agree Cruz is eligible- just as the CRS report says that judges are most likely to conclude.
How is Cruz's birth to an American parent any more or less unique than George Romney's birth to an American parent in Chihuahua, Mexico.This is already known, to which Cruz is even more unique than any of them.I have no idea because neither the constitution, nor congress has made that clear which is not to surprising since most Americans in our early history rarely if every traveled outside the country. The issue never came up until 1880 when there were rumors that Chester Arthur, the vice president nominee for president was rumored to have been born in Canada. In 1964, Barry Goldwater, the republican nominee for president faced qualification accusations because he was born in the Arizona Territory. In 1968, democrats questioned the qualifications of George Romney, a republican presidential candidate born in Chihuahua, Mexico. Senator John McCain, republican nominee for president faced questions because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone
That would solve a lot, wouldn't it.It seems to me, the simple solution would be for Congress to make the Federal Election Commission responsible for certifying that a candidate met the constitutional eligibility requirement. If the candidate failed to qualify, he or she could take the case to federal court. In this way, the issue could be settle before the first primary and the campaigns could focus on real issues that concerned voters.
Romney's parents were both US Citizens, other than that, not much different other than Romney got out of the race prior to any issue being brought against him.How is Cruz's birth to an American parent any more or less unique than George Romney's birth to an American parent in Chihuahua, Mexico.
I've often wonder why the Congress has never acted on this issue. Both parties have been victims of the birther theories.
Cruz's problem isn't his eligibility. Cruz's problem is that he is very unlikable. And creepy, can't forget creepy.
