Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the problem - the exact meaning of natural born citizen (NBC) isn't defined in the Constitution.
Those same founding fathers did define NBC via federal law, but that law was repealed. Because of this repeal, you claim that the definition is therefore invalid.
But John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington about requiring the President to be a natural born citizen, and now you insist that your favored interpretation of a personal letter of correspondence (wherein you de-emphasize 'born') be given the full weight of a constitutional requirement.
Frankly, you're picking and choosing your 'facts' based upon whether they agree with your opinions...and your opinions have twice been shown to be wrong.
Until an amendment passes to define NBC, or the Supreme Court makes a ruling on NBC, or Congress legislates that citizen at birth is (or is not) NBC. Until then, you don't get to claim that your interpretation of NBC is the legally binding one.
I'm in my 50s and in grade school, some of my friends were from a family with a US citizen Dad and a UK citizen Mom. They were born in the UK. Had British birth certificates. Even they knew as grade school kids way back then that they were born dual citizens.
Is Cruz an idiot? Or what?
Cruz is definitely not the idiot in this discussion.
Knowing you were born in another country and knowing that you have dual citizenship are two different things. Of course in the example you provide, each parent was a citizen of the country that afforded dual citizenship to the child. Further, I am pretty sure that grade school children were made aware of their dual citizenry from their parents and didn't somehow divine this revelation all on their own.
In the case of Cruz, neither parent was a citizen of Canada. Cruz' mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth and his father, a citizen of Cuba, but had fled to the US and had some kind of Visa or Green Card, or something allowing his to legally reside in the US.
Since neither of Cruz' parents were citizens of CA at the time of his birth or any time after that, and he is a US citizen by birthright, then there would be NO REASON FOR CRUZ to feel, think, believe or question that he was anything more than a US Citizen. Exactly what his parents believed as well.
Here's the problem - the exact meaning of natural born citizen (NBC) isn't defined in the Constitution.
Those same founding fathers did define NBC via federal law, but that law was repealed. Because of this repeal, you claim that the definition is therefore invalid.
But John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington about requiring the President to be a natural born citizen, and now you insist that your favored interpretation of a personal letter of correspondence (wherein you de-emphasize 'born') be given the full weight of a constitutional requirement.
Frankly, you're picking and choosing your 'facts' based upon whether they agree with your opinions...and your opinions have twice been shown to be wrong.
Until an amendment passes to define NBC, or the Supreme Court makes a ruling on NBC, or Congress legislates that citizen at birth is (or is not) NBC. Until then, you don't get to claim that your interpretation of NBC is the legally binding one.
Exactly my point. The only way the definition of NBC could be invalidated was if there was a superseding definition in the Act that repealed the previous one. Since that is NOT the case, then there is no reason to ignore the definition of NBC set out in the 1790 Act. The definition itself reflects the intent of the Founders' at that time and that definition has never been overturned or redefined. As such, Ted Cruz meets the standing definition of NBC as intended by the legislators in the 1790 Act.
Here's the problem - the exact meaning of natural born citizen (NBC) isn't defined in the Constitution.
Those same founding fathers did define NBC via federal law, but that law was repealed. Because of this repeal, you claim that the definition is therefore invalid.
Yep. That's what REPEALED means.
Quote:
But John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington about requiring the President to be a natural born citizen, and now you insist that your favored interpretation...
Not my "favored interpretation." Jay explicitly stated that foreigners should be excluded from eligibility for POTUS and CiC.
Anyone born a dual citizen is born a foreigner as well as a US citizen. Therefore, they're excluded from POTUS eligibility.
The US State Department is quite explicit in their warnings about the compromised legal position of born dual citizens, even to this day.
This has nothing to do with what I "think" or "feel." It's about foreign countries' valid legal rights under centuries old well-established international law, and born dual citizens' subsequently compromised legal obligations.
Cruz is definitely not the idiot in this discussion.
Seriously? WHO is born in a foreign country and doesn't investigate what the legal obligations of such are? The Gruber-described "stupid American voters?" OK, yeah, I'll give you that. But someone who went to a reputable law school, like Cruz? Not a chance in hell.
Exactly my point. The only way the definition of NBC could be invalidated was if there was a superseding definition in the Act that repealed the previous one.
You have that backwards. The 1795 Act REPEALED the 1790 Act. It's all a matter of legal record.
Repeal: The annulment of a previously existing statute by the enactment of a later law that revokes the former law.
If Cruz were born between 1790 and 1795, he'd be eligible.
Seriously? WHO is born in a foreign country and doesn't investigate what the legal obligations of such are? The Gruber-described "stupid American voters?" OK, yeah, I'll give you that. But someone who went to a reputable law school, like Cruz? Not a chance in hell.
Yeah, who? That is just crazy right there isn't it. What a maroon!
You have that backwards. The 1795 Act REPEALED the 1790 Act. It's all a matter of legal record.
My post was not directed to you. It was directed at someone else. I have already REPEALED your opinion and superseded it with my own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
