This should be good...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...84a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...84a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
Washington Post: Cruz not Eligible
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
It's already been established that military bases count as US soil
But what if they were born at the local hospital off base? McCain says he was born on US soil but the hospital at which he was born may not have been in the Canal Zone. Furthermore, the statute that granted him citizenship was enacted AFTER his birth and was made retroactive...so he was not a citizen AT birth.
Seems a little arbitrary that if I took my pregnant wife to Canada for a vacation and she delivered prematurely that our child wouldn't be eligible to serve as president.
Cruz is eligible.
Little different when Cruz admits he was not born here.
The difference is that the vast majority on the left don't take it seriously and are just having a little fun with it, while a large plurality of Republicans took it seriously in Obama's case.
Yes we know dems did not take it seriously because it would have meant their king ruler had to go bye bye if tjey had been serious
It is this type of circumstance that, imo, shows the absurdity of the position against Cruz, whether or not that was what the Constitution actually meant. The purpose, quite obviously, was to make sure that a person had allegiance to the US and not another nation, and there are many ways to do that without drawing a big line around the border of the US. Ben Franklin spent, what, a decade in France? What if he had a kid there, would Benjamin f****** Franklin's kid really not count?
Or how about a pregnant FLOTUS on a trip to London, would we not count the FIRST KID as a "natural born citizen" with POTUS eligibility?
It's absurd that you are trying to say Cruz's birth in Canada was similar to someone being born on vacation.
By nearly everyone on every team and those independent thinkers who don't join a team.
Either you don't know what "established" means, or you just used it incorrectly.
Well, first, I'm not saying it is "similar", but second, no it is not absurd. If the contention is correct in the WAPO opinion, that one must be born WITHIN the US borders than my post is not only not absurd, but entirely on point.
Once you agree that it would be an absurd distinction removing POTUS eligibility from the First Kid of the US because he was, surprise(!), born in another country on vacation, then it naturally leads to why it would be absurd in other scenarios as well.
But, as I SPECIFICALLY pointed out in the post you criticize, "The purpose, quite obviously, was to make sure that a person had allegiance to the US and not another nation, and there are many ways to do that without drawing a big line around the border of the US."
Its incredibly satisfying. It's hard to even describe how much I'm loving this karmic payback. Maybe the universe really is ruled by a benevolent judgmental force?
Do you admit that his situation is different than McCain's? There's no reason McCain would be loyal to any other country. Cruz lived in Canada for 3 years and was a citizen until recently.
I guess I'm missing the part where conventional wisdom (because it hasn't been adjudicated) says that either being born on US soil or on foreign soil to parents who are BOTH citizens would qualify.
Not according to the WAPO article. And not even according to your post I responded to where you credited, "...nearly everyone on every team and those independent thinkers who don't join a team."
I haven't seen an exception for that, is there one? The WAPO piece says: "The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth."
"James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”"
Yes, of course it is different than McCain's, what is your point?
There isn't much reason for Cruz to be "loyal to any other country" either, as he has lived ~41 years in the US as a US citizen. But that isn't the point, and I'm not sure why you are asking me questions just to skew it to your comment?
There may be reasons for requiring allegiance to the US, and there are definitely ways of determining it, even for this situation, but simply drawing the border of the US is overly exclusive. If you believed Cruz was a commie Canadian, you could point to his non-renouncing his citizenship (until recently), you could point to his (only 3) years living there, you could point to his smug face, you could point to all sorts of things, each which would be more logical than simply excluding him because he was born outside the borders.
As you seem to agree with McCain. If you need to make very specific exceptions like, "well it was a US zone", or "well, New Mexico became a US state," or whatever then you should simply rethink the requirement in the first place.
I agree with all your examples of how stupid the natural born rule is. But here's the thing . . . we don't get to ignore the constitution just because the founders put something in there that we now recognize was stupid.
Just like the 2nd Amendment or the Commerce Clause or the Electoral College - if you don't like it, amend the constitution. Don't just ignore or redefine the words.
Like with the 2nd Amendment, there are perfectly plausible but incompatible ways to read that eligibility requirement. That's when we either amend or ask the Supreme Court to rule. Since the amendment route presumably takes too long, we should ask SCOTUS. But amending the constitution to clarify this is something we should do to settle it once and for all.
If we had a functioning democracy with a functioning press, I would completely agree.
Actually yes, yes we can. Nobody has to make this a controversy that needs to be decided. We CAN ignore the Constitution by not complaining about it. This would not be the first time, and this wouldn't even be blatant, because it is clearly unsettled law. I think you sound like Rand trying to pretend he doesn't believe it, but it is his duty .... "Well, I, myself, don't believe it, but hey rules are rules!" Pathetic.
I agree with this just because I want some Constitutional amendments! Problem with your argument here is that these ARE controversies, people are complaining about them.
I like your "plausible but incompatible" comment, are you still claiming that the clause is incompatible on its face? That the specific exemption for the founders renders my position wrong? Come on, you are smarter than that.
So . . . new news says Cruz had an undisclosed mega loan from Goldman Sachs to help him win his Senate seat.
I'm sure that won't matter.
I'm sure that won't matter.
I don't get this. Are you saying that the public does NOT, in fact, receive enough information to determine whether Cruz is an American or whether he has allegiances to other countries?
Sounds like you are saying that, because they don't know about his policies/ideologies enough that we should still disqualify him, and that is weak even for you.
No, that wasn't my meaning. I am simply saying that my oft-stated willingness to accept democratic outcomes is conditioned on having the basics of democracy in place. Nor do I require perfection. But we have neither a democratic process nor an informed public. And without those it's hard to say that the outcome of an election like this one really reflects the people's will.
My position on Cruz is simple. A few decades ago he would not have been eligible. As far as I know, the constitution hasn't changed since then.
My position on the natural born rule is also simple. It's dumb and we should get rid of it. But until we do or until SCOTUS says otherwise, it is the rule. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
What I said was that there are incompatible ways to read the eligibility requirement. Some people believe it excludes Cruz, some don't. Both views have plenty of people lining up in support. Plausible arguments can be crafted for each position.
Hence my comment that we have "plausible but incompatible ways to read that eligibility requirement."
And hence my belief we should get SCOTUS involved.
If this is going to go to SCOTUS, Cruz (or someone supporting Cruz) would be smart to get the ball rolling. Not something he will want still festering when the GOP is picking a nominee, or when America goes to the polls.
I take Cruz's shucking and jiving - issuing his mother's birth certificate, for example, as if anyone is challenging her citizenship - to mean that Cruz is worried. Unless he thinks he can talk this into submission, he needs to get it out of the way.
