I have not heard much birther stuff about Cruz from the left. Trump has been the one pushing it.
Washington Post: Cruz not Eligible
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
Natural Born is clearly subjective. If they let Cruz pass the Natural Born Test, then all of the Obama birther craze was crap. If all you need is one parent to be born in the USA to make you "natural born", then the eligibility just rose exponentially.
So our choices for president could very well be an illegal (Cruz) vs. a criminal (Hillary).
Way to troll ourselves America.
Way to troll ourselves America.
Except for the facts that there is no evidence that Hillary is or has ever been a criminal, and that Cruz is clearly eligible.
Do you dig a hole first or just dive right in when burying your head in the sand?
Or, you know, it didn't, because it was always meant that way...
I don't think it is, in fact, subjective. It is objective: If you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen.
Got ya, makes more sense than how I read it.
If MY side is correct, issuing his mother's birth certificate is conclusive proof of his natural born citizenship ... exactly what he has claimed all along.
I think your position on the historical context is flat out inaccurate. Not that it has changed, but that you incorrectly believed it back then when the correct understanding was understood that way all along.
Just because it was brought up decades ago doesn't mean those people were right ... just as those bringing it up now aren't right.
Your last position is nonsensical when you apply it to just about any other context. I can't imagine you are a "rules for rules sake" guy in any other context. Unless, you know, you believe that people in Colorado can't smoke the MJ until the federal law is changed. No one HAS to challenge Cruz's eligibility. The SCOTUS, by law, is not required to weigh in on every potentially-argued Constitutional issue, especially when it may not be a Constitutional controversy to begin with.
Sure. But as I said, nobody is claiming his mother isn't a citizen.
To me, it's like someone accused of speeding pulls out his wallet and says "see, this is my license; it proves I'm driving legally." True enough, but it doesn't address the speeding question.
Except in your analogy the act (speeding) was actually done, and can't be proved by the license.
In this case, under our belief, the act (being a natural born citizen), is entirely and conclusively proved by the birth certificate.
I get your point, it won't satisfy the "Cruz birthers" ... but how can anything he does satisfy them? He factually admits what they claim, just not their conclusion.
Yeah, but it's now been "Trumped up" so it's hard to ignore. And Alan Grayson says he will file suit if it gets that far. So the landscape has changed.
We'll see what happens tonight. If Trump can keep it a bone of contention, then Cruz should probably try to take control.
Just how to do that is another question.
Most Cruz fans won't be bothered by this. Either they will agree with you that Cruz qualifies or they will agree with me that it's a dumb rule and will ignore it. But what about those who are not Cruz fans? What about the independent who doesn't really want either Hillary or Cruz but has to pick one. Even losing a small portion of those voters who have doubts about Cruz's eligibility could change the final vote.
And how about the big time investors? Will they want to put a lot of money into a guy who may not be eligible?
I'll be satisfied if SCOTUS sides with your interpretation. Will you be satisfied if SCOTUS sides with mine?
There will be people who won't even be satisfied then, of course. But I imagine that would settle it for nearly all.
You keep saying federal laws cannot redefine the Constitution. What, in your opinion, did the framers mean by "natural born citizen"? Did they mean only persons born on American soil?
All of the Obama suits were thrown out for standing. How does Grayson prove standing to sue? I would think one of the other candidates would have to sue.
I assume anyone could sue if he actually takes office. Before then it would be trickier. Perhaps Rand Paul could sue. He's off the stage because he didn't score high enough in the polls. But what if Cruz were out of the race? If Paul would have gotten some of Cruz's share, maybe he's in the race. So Cruz's participation harmed Paul if he (Cruz) doesn't belong in the race.
I don't care how they rule, I'm saying it is a waste of resources to have them rule.
I think the differentiation that the article and WWJD make is that a person can be immediately "naturalized" upon birth, because naturalization laws say so.
Basically that the naturalization laws and the Constitution are separate and non-combinable.
Basically that the naturalization laws and the Constitution are separate and non-combinable.
Probably wouldn't do any good. He's ignored every one of my questions to him in each of these Cruz eligibility threads.
If you have been "naturalized" you are "made natural."
What else should it mean?
Naturalization is a process by which someone who is not already a natural citizen (by whatever rules we follow to determine that) is made exactly the same under the law as someone who is a natural citizen.
If you look at it that way, Jennifer Granholm (Canadian-born, naturalized US citizen and former Michigan Governor) can run for president. As can Austrian-born, naturalized US citizen and former California Governor Arnie Schwarzenegger.
But some people want to say that even when you have been successfully naturalized, you somehow you aren't really a natural citizen.
If you think the founders meant that phrase to apply only to those who were actually born here - necessitating the temporary exception they put into the constitution - then Cruz doesn't count, because he wasn't born here. Whereas, if you think having a US citizen parent makes you (and Cruz) a natural citizen eligible to run for president, then why shouldn't any legal process that naturalizes you also make you eligible to run for president?
Why not any voter who is voting in an election where Cruz is a candidate? I would think we voters have an interest in making sure the ballot only lists eligible candidates.
So the Texas guy who is suing may not have standing. At least not until the Texas primary nears and ballots have to be printed. But someone in New Hampshire ought to be able to challenge.
Just my opinion.
Frankly, I think refusing to hear serious issues because of standing is a pussy move. We are better off if questions like this are answered.
So then what you have been touting as established constitutional law is really just your personal opinion of what the framers meant when they wrote "natural born citizen".
