Ted Cruz was born in Canada

a reply to: yesyesyes

Well we often refer to original intent when discussing the second amendment. With the same spirit, one could say, do you really think founding fathers intended for the people to have unfettered access to guns even when they are used to slaughter dozens of kids in a kindergarten?

My point is, your thrust opens up many questions that are often times viewed as open shut.


I think it is Important to note that those men wrote NATURAL BORN CITIZEN - as opposed to CITIZEN. Why would they include those words?

You really ought to work on perfecting the art of segue. Not very smooth...pretty transparent actually. Those men wrote "natural born citizen" and defined it. Just stop. Seriously.

a reply to: yesyesyes

With the same spirit, one could say, do you really think founding fathers intended for the people to have unfettered access to guns even when they are used to slaughter dozens of kids in a kindergarten?

Nope, I sure don't.

I think it is Important to note that those men wrote NATURAL BORN CITIZEN - as opposed to CITIZEN. Why would they include those words?

Because a CITIZEN be somebody who immigrated from another country, as in, was born in another country to foreign parents, then immigrated and became a citizen.

A natural born citizen is somebody born of American Parents, who did not immigrate from another country and become a citizen that way.

Ted Cruz fits that description.

I"ll give you an example. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would not be qualified, as he was born in Austria and IMMIGRATED to the United States and became a citizen.:

My point is, your thrust opens up many questions that are often times viewed as open shut.

As it should. Considering the document was meant to be updated.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: yesyesyes

But they didn't, they said a natural born citizen, they could of said "child of a citizen" which is less letters to write.

What does natural born mean in that case? Why the hell would they include those words?

Now you're just being pedantic. Have you checked out the rest of the Constitution? It's not exactly written layman's terms. Does it matter why they didn't write it more simply? Not for the purpose of your thread's topic. The only thing that matters is that Mr. Cruz is eligible to run for office under the law, which has been asked and answered. The lack of user-friendly language in the US Constitution is another ball of wax entirely...but I bet if you make a thread about that instead, you'll get more feedback than you can shake a stick at.

Well, you may be right, but I find it is an interesting thing to examine, especially when it relates to other people's notions, like yours.

This does open up a huge can of worms.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
There's precedent in the courts for this.

He's qualified.

He renounced his Canadian citizenship. Anybody who argues otherwise will have to make a court challenge, otherwise it's just talk.

~Tenth

I don't think that part of the constitution was ever fully rounded, doesn't the US also have clauses about naturalization as well as natural born, and that the original intent in the draft was for a body to be born on US soil, and that naturalization came after, as an accommodation, and was 'natural born' only in the original draft.
Thing is, what is the right definition in law today, and not the intent, which is not legal unless by convention, which is not probably legal anyway in a written constitution. It's a biggy while the whole thing drags on, however putting a stamp on something will leave some disenfranchised. That's the kind of problem that comes with written constitutions, they sometimes embrace some conventions of the day, and trash others. ???

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: 38181
Your correct, he was born in Canada, his father was born and raised in Cuba, only his mother was born in American, that means he's not qualified.

www.washingtonpost.com...

"All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. . . .
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790"

So I must ask, why didn't the Founding Fathers just say that you could be president if your parent is a citizen?

It doesn't add up to me at all. In the 1700's the majority of people didn't travel more than 100 miles from home.
I think there is something to be said about a person being of the country and of the land that was very important to the Founding Fathers.

I do not speak for the Founding Fathers.

Why is it that people think they have suddenly discovered the fatal flaw/loophole through their astute research and incisive logic? Do you think Cruz would have become a candidate knowing that he was not eligible? Do you think he wouldn't have his legal staff investigating this from all directions?

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: yesyesyes

Well we often refer to original intent when discussing the second amendment. With the same spirit, one could say, do you really think founding fathers intended for the people to have unfettered access to guns even when they are used to slaughter dozens of kids in a kindergarten?

My point is, your thrust opens up many questions that are often times viewed as open shut.


I think it is Important to note that those men wrote NATURAL BORN CITIZEN - as opposed to CITIZEN. Why would they include those words?

You really ought to work on perfecting the art of segue. Not very smooth...pretty transparent actually. Those men wrote "natural born citizen" and defined it. Just stop. Seriously.

I am not really trying to be smooth actually.

Please provide the text where they define it, I am looking for it and I cannot find it.

If we are going to examine original intent, I really think a sizable portion of the framers believed that your nationality
was determined by your locale simply to ensure loyalty to the United States and not some other country of origin.

originally posted by: 38181
Your correct, he was born in Canada, his father was born and raised in Cuba, only his mother was born in American, that means he's not qualified.

No, that means he is qualified. He is an American citizen, not naturalized. We already went through this with Obama. You want to pull the same tired trick again???

a reply to: yesyesyes

I don't think he's eligible either.

The whole birther issue with Obama was "where was he born"?

We always knew his mother was a US citizen.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: yesyesyes

With the same spirit, one could say, do you really think founding fathers intended for the people to have unfettered access to guns even when they are used to slaughter dozens of kids in a kindergarten?

Nope, I sure don't.

Probably because one notion suits you and the other does not, perfectly human to fluctuate like that. But your initial argument discounting the opinions of long dean men in one case, but not in the other is not consistent.

As it should. Considering the document was meant to be updated.

~Tenth

I shall reveal that I think this question casts enough doubt to prevent Ted Cruz from running an effective campaign. Especially because as a constitutional lawyer he regularly tries to discern initial intent, I am of the notion that his personal standards should be applied to himself even if that is not a PC position to take.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: 38181
Your correct, he was born in Canada, his father was born and raised in Cuba, only his mother was born in American, that means he's not qualified.

www.washingtonpost.com...

"All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. . . .
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790"

So I must ask, why didn't the Founding Fathers just say that you could be president if your parent is a citizen?

It doesn't add up to me at all. In the 1700's the majority of people didn't travel more than 100 miles from home.
I think there is something to be said about a person being of the country and of the land that was very important to the Founding Fathers.

I do not speak for the Founding Fathers.

Why is it that people think they have suddenly discovered the fatal flaw/loophole through their astute research and incisive logic? Do you think Cruz would have become a candidate knowing that he was not eligible? Do you think he wouldn't have his legal staff investigating this from all directions?

Well I think he is trying set two sets of standards, one for himself, and the other for "anchor babies" and whomever else
his base fears.

I also think his base will easily fluctuate if they are told "it is okay in this case".

Just like GWB non conservative policies were sanctioned and received very little opposition from conservatives towards his big spending, government growing policies.

Cruz is fortunate that his base is more vocal than substantive.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: yesyesyes

I don't think he's eligible either.

The whole birther issue with Obama was "where was he born"?

That was known all the time, in the USA! The whole birther issue was that he was not a white man.

We always knew his mother was a US citizen.

Which would also make him a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born.

originally posted by: buster2010
The problem with the term natural born citizen is there really is no definition of the term and it doesn't say what it is in the constitution. Cruz is of course a American citizen because his mother was a citizen but is he a natural born citizen? I don't think he should be called one because he was born in another country. So no he shouldn't be able to run for president.

Natural law is not 'defined.' That's exactly what distinguishes it from positive law.

Each person is born under unique circumstances and so the law is very broad -- one person born in the U.S. to two citizen parents might be a natural born citizen while another might not be because the nation their grandparents are from confers citizenship through grandparents, for example.

Natural law is universal...in other words, the U.S. isn't the 'decider' and ruler of the entire world. We have to respect the citizenship laws of other nations when determining whether a person is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Someone born with dual/multiple citizenships does not qualify as a natural born U.S. citizen.

Cruz isn't eligible, Obama isn't eligible...and no court can define the term 'natural born Citizen' without taking it from 'natural law' to 'positive law.'

On this one issue, the drafters deferred to natural law. SCOTUS does not have the jurisdiction to interpret and apply natural law, hence their determination that we would have to look "elsewhere" for that answer.

a reply to: yesyesyes

You see, I answered your question though, in line with what the constitution says. Nobody put left wing pundits are saying he's not eligible. That and Donald Trump, but only cause he knows a lot of people fall for nonsense and play on word games.

So, how can it still be a question? I spelled out the difference between Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen.

Ted is a natural born citizen.

Case closed.

~Tenth

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: yesyesyes

I don't think he's eligible either.

The whole birther issue with Obama was "where was he born"?

That was known all the time, in the USA! The whole birther issue was that he was not a white man.

We always knew his mother was a US citizen.

Which would also make him a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born.

You might be right, but many people did contend that was not enough.

I guess the question is, should the opposition doggedly hold then to the same standards?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: yesyesyes

You see, I answered your question though, in line with what the constitution says. Nobody put left wing pundits are saying he's not eligible. That and Donald Trump, but only cause he knows a lot of people fall for nonsense and play on word games.

So, how can it still be a question? I spelled out the difference between Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen.

Ted is a natural born citizen.

Case closed.

~Tenth

Donald Trump is hardly a lefty, and at a recent campaign event his very conservative supporters were in fact questioning Ted Cruz's eligibility. It is easy for you to settle this in your mind, by I think if you are honest you damn well know that Trump and his conservative backers will be doing just the same as me.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
one person born in the U.S. to two citizen parents might be a natural born citizen while another might not be because the nation their grandparents are from confers citizenship through grandparents, for example.

Wrong, someone born in the USA is a natural born US citizen with 2 exceptions. What another country decides has nothing to do with someone born in the USA.

the U.S. isn't the 'decider' and ruler of the entire world. We have to respect the citizenship laws of other nations when determining whether a person is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Nonsense, other countries laws have nothing at all to do with the citizenship of someone born in the USA. Otherwise Fiji could decide everyone born in the USA is immediately a Fijian citizen, which would mean no one could ever become POTUS!

Cruz isn't eligible, Obama isn't eligible.

They both are actually.

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
Was Ted Cruz born by vaginal birth hence natural born or by cesarean unnatural?

It was an rectal cavity.
An extremely rare case

a reply to: yesyesyes

But it won't matter in the end.

What did it accomplish with Obama, which was a bit more of a valid case if you ask me.

If donald wants to spend his campaign money trying to wreck cruz's eligibility, that will just draw Cruz supports and anti Trump supports to Cru'z side and hurt his campaign.

~Tenth

The big questions with Cruz was whether or not he ever renounced U.S. Citizenship.

Same questions with Obama.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Wrong, someone born in the USA is a natural born US citizen with 2 exceptions. What another country decides has nothing to do with someone born in the USA.

I don't believe that the U.S. is so exceptional that they are able to completely disregard the citizenship laws of other nations. The U.S. Constitution most certainly (and specifically) regards the 'Law of Nations' (International laws).

Arguments against respecting the laws of other nations are completely xenophobic and racist.