Ted Cruz, so whaddya think?

[jlprk]

How come I have to follow the Framers' intent? Did they ever follow my intent? Politeness has its limits when it's not mutual.

 

[Denny Crane]

How come I have to follow the Framers' intent? Did they ever follow my intent? Politeness has its limits when it's not mutual.

How would you like to buy stock in a company and have the company decide your stock is no longer valid?

The "framers" of the company intended you to be able to own a % of the company and have voting rights for your share of stock.

Because the corporation's bylaws (constitution) are codified at the beginning (perhaps 100+ years ago in the case of AT&T or Sears or other very old companies), they have to live by those rules.

 

[jlprk]

I just remembered when I signed that uncoerced contract.

 

[Further]

If one is birthed via c-section they may not be president, as they aren't natural born.

 

[Denny Crane]

If one is birthed via c-section they may not be president, as they aren't natural born.

I don't think the method of birth has anything to do with "natural born" in this context.

 

[Further]

I was making a joke with a point. People here are trying to interpret the law one way or another, but until the supreme Court hears arguments we won't really know. Because, just going by the wording without reason or intent, my scenario of c-sectioners not being valid would sound appropriate. Any reason applied, and of course even Donald Trump can run even though he was ripped by Beelzebub's tar-laden belly, in America.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think there's no ambiguity about the term.

Natural in the sense of Naturalized or not.

It's not some nebulous concept.

 

[MarAzul]

but until the supreme Court hears arguments we won't really know.

That statement right there bugs the hell out of me. Why would people want the court to tell us what the law means? The term has already been define contemporary with the time of the creation of the Constitution and it is available to read. It is not difficult to understand and it seems quite logical. People of today might want to change it slightly or radically but before deciding, they should read it and then amend it if change is desired. What I object to is ignoring the requirement out of ignorance of meaning of Natural Born citizen and the intent of why the requirement was stipulated. Having the court change the meaning is a ridiculous lazy form of extreme apathy. But then, so is ignoring the requirement.

 

[Further]

The courts aren't there to change the meaning, they are there to interpret. I've heard comments on tv from people who interpret it both ways. Eventually, the courts decide on the interpretation they believe the constitution implied. Or at least that's their charge. That's why they are there.

 

[MarAzul]

heard comments

Did you read it yourself?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Fact-checking Ted Cruz

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/24/fact-check-ted-cruz/70367864/

 

[MarAzul]

10 million people on net gained

Wow! They just blow off those that lost their health insurance. They did the same to the workers that got cut back to part time work.

 

[jlprk]

10 million people on net gained

Wow! They just blow off those that lost their health insurance.

Wow! You just blow off those who gained health insurance.

By the way, it's who, not that.

Besides, if you don't consider health insurance a worthy freedom to subsidize, why do you care when it gets unsubsidized? That's your goal. Why aren't you praising the loss of health insurance to the undeserving scrub 47%, for example Republican small business owners?

 

[jlprk]

Glenn Beck leaves the Republican Party.
O'Reilly disagrees with Glenn Beck over everything.
Beck would vote for Ted Cruz. O'Reilly argues that Cruz is a loser.
They agree that they dislike Karl Rove and his dirty tactics.
And there are more disagreements.



(How do I display this video as a video?)

 

[Further]

Did you read it yourself?

No I have not. It could be simple as you state, but in that case the courts decision would be obvious. From the bit I saw on tv (cnn I think) there appeared to be a debate. Perhaps I'll read the part myself if I get a few minutes. But regardless, you must admit there are groups who interpret both ways. Just because you find it obvious doesn't mean everyone dose, else there wouldn't be segments on tv, articles in papers and such discussing the issue.

But either way, I don't think it should be a hindrance if one has lived their whole life in America. So if it's deemed allowable, fine by me. If it isn't, I'd be in favor of an amendment as I stated earlier.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow, further.

When the constitution gets in progressives' way, they pretend the language is subject to ridiculous kinds of interpretation. And that's what they write about.

You offered no real support.

 

[Further]

My views are all over the map. I lean liberal, but I also appreciate common sense and that belongs to everyone, even if few use it.

 

[Denny Crane]

My views are all over the map. I lean liberal, but I also appreciate common sense and that belongs to everyone, even if few use it.

That's fine.

My point is that just because there's lots of fairy tales on the Internet about Santa Claus doesn't make him a reality.

 

[Further]

I wasn't claiming Santa is real, I was claiming that there are people who believe in him.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wasn't claiming Santa is real, I was claiming that there are people who believe in him.

That doesn't speak at all to him actually being real.

 

[Further]

Exactly. I was simply saying that having seen the issue debated on cnn, there might be an issue the courts need to weigh in on.m as I stated, I have not read the exact verbiage, so I hold no firm stance. But from the very basic information of hearing the term "natural born citizen" without more knowledge, I can see interpretation being an issue. If the constitution spells it out, fine, but without knowing more someone not born in America would seem to go against the concept of "natural born". But I lay no claim to being right, a little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, there isn't really much point in debating if Santa Claus exists, even if some people are foolish enough to believe it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Harvard Law Review good enough?

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

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. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

 

[magnifier661]

So it's official! Denny is an Alien!

 

[Further]

Yep. Seems well decided.

 

[MarAzul]

It could be simple as you state

I did not state what the term means. I have seen no debate what so ever about the what the Law of Nation says about the term Natural Born. This is the only place I know of where it is defined contemporary with the of creation of the Constitution.
I do see people speculate about what iit should mean. You seem to be in that category. Why would a person speculate on what a term means rather than read the definition? Why take sides in a debate over what it means before you have read what it means? Why look to the court to tell you what it means before you disagree with the known definition?

Do you know of a reason why the term was used to specify the requirement for the office of President? No other office or position has this requirement, so it must be important to understand the meaning of the term. Don't you agree?

 

[MarAzul]

Harvard Law Review good enough

I think that review explains the meaning well enough and the first immigration law definitely followed on with the theme. Even though the 14th amendment changed the original immigration law, it made no attempt to change the Natural Born definition.

This statement from the review is the heart of the explanation of Natural born in the Law of Nations.

"That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . ."

The reason for the requirement of Natural Born for President, is to prevent wealthy foreigners from fathering off spring born in this country from becoming President where these off spring would be citizens of the nation of their father by right of decent.

Ted Cruz's birth in Canada is not a problem any more than it was for John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal zone as congress has already ruled. Cruz's father was a resident of the US
before his birth and most of the time since although not a citizen, but I think the 1790 immigration law covers that issue with Cruz's father being a resident long enough.

But we do have one problem currently on hand, can anyone think of a President who's father was never a resident of the US? A President that was born in the US, but was also born a citizen of another nation by right of decent? This is an exact example of what the term Natural Born was intended to prevent.

 

[MarAzul]

Here is a copy and paste of the section of the 1759 Book, The law of Nations. Sometime referred to as Natural Law.

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate
itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally
follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The
society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on
entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of
it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these
become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether,
on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and
what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to
be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a
citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of
his birth, and not his country.”

 

[Further]

Harvard Law Review good enough?

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

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. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

Yep. Seems well decided.

Here is a copy and paste of the section of the 1759 Book, The law of Nations. Sometime referred to as Natural Law.

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate
itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally
follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The
society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on
entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of
it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these
become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether,
on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and
what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to
be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a
citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of
his birth, and not his country.”

I see you two were correct. I have no quarrel.

 

[barfo]

I see you two were correct. I have no quarrel.

They cannot both be correct, for they are arguing different points of view. Denny's is that a natural born citizen is any citizen that did not require naturalization. MarAzul's is that a natural born citizen is as defined in a book written before the US constitution. According to MarAzul, Obama is not a natural born citizen. According to Denny, Obama is.

barfo