....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 You do know that the Naturalization Act of 1790 is 1) not the Constitution, and 2) superseded many, many times over in the 225 years since? Of course you do. You're just trying to prove a ridiculous point that you don't even understand. To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child's citizenship flowed from the parents' allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors. The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father's country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband's — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother's country. That idea wasn't even considered until 1844 in Victorian England. The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html
IDBillzFan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-pr2esident-20160110-story.html A hardcore leftist taking the birther route on a GOP presidential candidate. Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.htmlThat's not an Origionalist viewpoint, that's a strawman substituted for an Origionalist viewpoint by leftists.
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 That's not an Origionalist viewpoint, that's a strawman substituted for an Origionalist viewpoint by leftists. well link to a counter argument or write your own or STFU
unbillievable Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I hope the liberals pull the birther conspiracy off... it'll invalidate Obama's entire presidency.
IDBillzFan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 well link to a counter argument or write your own or STFUI have an idea...why don't you take Cruz to court. Get a judge to invalidate his candidacy. Oh, wait... http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/02/29/birther-suit-against-ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-dismissed-by-federal-judge-in-little-rock You birthers are crazy.
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I hope the liberals pull the birther conspiracy off... it'll invalidate Obama's entire presidency. Nope, Obama was born on American soil.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 well link to a counter argument or write your own or STFUOrigionalist philosophy endorses the Amendment process as a legitimate way to modify the Document.
keepthefaith Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 All this is true. Except, I suspect most Trump voters would be able to put aside their cynicism on voting day to cast a vote for Cruz. Especially if he gets Trump's endorsement because of the Sessions connection. Cruz is probably the only way the GOP can win this cycle. How do you go from Lyin Ted to an endorsement? Trump torpedo's bridges that he has yet to cross.
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Origionalist philosophy endorses the Amendment process as a legitimate way to modify the Document. Which Amendment do you think has bearing? the 19th? The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Ozymandius Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 How do you go from Lyin Ted to an endorsement? Trump torpedo's bridges that he has yet to cross. Trump at heart is just a dealmaker. Cruz has now also campaigned on building a wall, so Trump would just extract a promise from Cruz that Trump gets to be the contractor that builds the wall. Also, Jeff Sessions would be a great go-between to smooth things out between the two of them. As for how Trump could explain it to voters. He'll just say he didn't like the dirty tactics Cruz's Super Pac employed but he does trust Cruz on immigration. And if Sessions trusts Cruz, then that's good enough for Trump. I mean, they're politicians. They'll figure something out. Throughout history, there have been bitter primary campaigns that have ended up with the competitors on the same ticket. I don't expect that to happen here, but I do believe an endorsement could be made.
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 well link to a counter argument or write your own or STFU The counter-argument is that that's not an "originalist" view, because it has ****-all to do with the Constitution.
Tiberius Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 So his dad was a Cuban citizen and he was born in Canada. Yes, if you view it from an originalist POV he is not a citizen. But orginialists would only argue that point when its in their own self interest
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 So his dad was a Cuban citizen and he was born in Canada. Yes, if you view it from an originalist POV he is not a citizen. But orginialists would only argue that point when its in their own self interest No, if you view it from an originalist point of view, THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T DEFINE CITIZENSHIP.
Tiberius Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 No, if you view it from an originalist point of view, THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T DEFINE CITIZENSHIP. It DOES say if you were born here you are a citizen. But that's it. So it kind of opens the door for what Trump is doing. I can't see a serious legal challenge here, but it could be a rhetorical problem for Cruz
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 No, if you view it from an originalist point of view, THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T DEFINE CITIZENSHIP. It leaves it open to law. Most Origionalists understand that the Founders intended that the Document itself should hold static meaning where it is express in it's definitions, with it's language mutable only through the prescribed Amendment process; but that the areas not defined should instead be subject to law and legislative process, which is fluid. There is a group of Origionalists which deviate from mainstream Origionalism (there are multiple Origionalist philosophies) who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted only through the lens of the law in 1787, and that's the strawman ...lybob is presenting. However even there is he is wrong because of the 14th.
GG Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 It DOES say if you were born here you are a citizen. Which has nothing to do with the natural-born citizen clause.
Tiberius Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Which has nothing to do with the natural-born citizen clause. True
GG Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 A five minute Googlebot search reveals the applicable statute would be Section 301 (g) of the IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years The question is whether Rafael Cruz was still considered a legal alien of the US while in living Canada.
Nanker Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I thought it was if he entered the world through his mother's birth canal and not via C-section.
Recommended Posts