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.
I'm saying as an American Cruz is not a subject of the crown. I might raise an eyebrow if he maintained a Canadian passport but the United States is not part of an international treaty that enforces someone to be a subject based on their birthplace.
I don't care how you become American, you aren't involuntarily subject to any other government.
But your question is invalid. First you are implying that an American can be subject to the crown because of where they were born. While that is false you're missing the bigger picture. Canadians are not subject to the crown. Only members of the military and government swear any kind of allegiance to the crown and I don't care if you think that makes them a subject or not unless you are alleging that before age 4 Cruz was a member of the military or government.
So, if you want to ask your question in general, I'd say "who knows" and "who cares" because it's too hypothetical.
If you want to ask it in regards to Cruz, then I standbuy my allegation that it's a false question (and premise) because Cruz is American and Canadians are not subject to the crown.
You are wrong, it is assumed that native born Canadians will be loyal to Canada and the Crown. And Cruz is a natural born Canadian Which is why when Americans take out Canadian citizenship they have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, being naturally born revolting colonials etc. Oh, Canadians are not subject to the Crown ? the Governor -General has no power, you are mistaken in that.
You are wrong, it is assumed that native born Canadians will be loyal to Canada and the Crown. And Cruz is a natural born Canadian Which is why when Americans take out Canadian citizenship they have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, being naturally born revolting colonials etc. Oh, Canadians are not subject to the Crown ? the Governor -General has no power, you are mistaken in that.
You can assume what you want but you're the only one. If you were relying on facts you could back up your assumption with links to any of the billions of web pages out there.
And what does being loyal to the crown mean to you and why would it make a difference in presidential qualifications? Loyalty does not make one a subject but even if it did what difference would it make? It's a constitutional monarchy. You aren't swearing to kill her enemies when you become a citizen.
Cruz never took the oath of allegiance. Smokescreen #1. In pre-school (if he attended) he was never marched anywhere to swear anything to any monarch.
The Governor General's power in Canada is irrelevant to this conversation. He has no power over American citizens residing in America. He has no power over Cruz. Smokescreen #2.
You can assume what you want but you're the only one. If you were relying on facts you could back up your assumption with links to any of the billions of web pages out there.
And what does being loyal to the crown mean to you and why would it make a difference in presidential qualifications? Loyalty does not make one a subject but even if it did what difference would it make? It's a constitutional monarchy. You aren't swearing to kill her enemies when you become a citizen.
Cruz never took the oath of allegiance. Smokescreen #1. In pre-school (if he attended) he was never marched anywhere to swear anything to any monarch.
The Governor General's power in Canada is irrelevant to this conversation. He has no power over American citizens residing in America. He has no power over Cruz. Smokescreen #2.
NZrugby is also unaware of the fact that the Commonwealth has abolished the class of Subject a few decades ago. There are no more subjects in any of the Commonwealth countries, unless those that choose to remain so if they were born before a certain date.
NZrugby is also unaware of the fact that the Commonwealth has abolished the class of Subject a few decades ago. There are no more subjects in any of the Commonwealth countries, unless those that choose to remain so if they were born before a certain date.
Did he state his position on the question? I'm trying to be lazy here. OK, I'm not trying. But thanks for the note. I would have liked to have ran across a link for that.
Did he state his position on the question? I'm trying to be lazy here. OK, I'm not trying. But thanks for the note. I would have liked to have ran across a link for that.
No. OP has a track record of deliberately stirring up the hornet's nest with a topic that would upset the right winger crowd on here. Of all the replies on here, less than 10 are actually his.
No. OP has a track record of deliberately stirring up the hornet's nest with a topic that would upset the right winger crowd on here. Of all the replies on here, less than 10 are actually his.
I feel sorry for the flies that don't see the web. For me it was good to learn more about Canada and shoot the barreled fish.
Where is this distinction coming from? The term natural born and native born appear to be freely interchangeable from the drafting of the Constitution thru the debates on the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It is also a distinction that I've never heard you draw before. So, help me out here.
As far as the Constitution is concerned they are absolutely interchangeable. The Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen, and since all native born citizens are natural born, there is no Constitutional distinction in using one versus the other.
But native born is only a subset of natural born. Native born exclusively means born on US soil. But natural born includes all citizens at birth; meaning both native born (regardless of parental citizenship) and those non-native born children of citizens. The INS (for example) recognizes this repeatedly if ambiguously in their own regulations, something that has regularly caused hopeless excitement among birthers, not realizing that the INS distinction has no Constitutional effect. It is the inclusive natural born (not exclusive native born) that is the criterion for eligibility found in the Constitution.
The distinction is also made clear in the Wong Kim Ark dissent, where Justice Fuller's primary concern is that the Wong decision might be read to exclude the children of citizens born overseas from Presidential eligibility. But the status of children of citizens born overseas was irrelevant to the Wong case, so it was not even considered in the decision. And of course, Fuller's fears have never been realized... even though Ron Paul supporters became the first McCain birthers, and now the Obama birthers (yes, it's the same group) are raising Cain about Cruz.
The native born subset of natural born citizens/subjects has its origin in centuries old common law. But even long before the US existed, the English had extended the common law status of "natural born" to include children of subjects born overseas via parliamentary statute. The United States inherited this expanded concept which carried both the common law component (native born) and the statutory component under the enlarged natural born concept. That we inherited both is demonstrated by the Naturalization Act of 1790, where the first congress (composed overwhelmingly of Framers) explicitly said so.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 06-16-2013 at 09:51 PM..
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.
