US Presidential election 2016

Discussion in 'The Signs of the Times' started by Infant Jesus of Prague, Dec 4, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Well, now there you are very wrong. Never mind "my dear-ing" to detract from the fact you will not answer and have nothing to say. This is too important. It is not about posturing, it is about getting to the truth so we can have a person fit for the presidency in that office. Get to the facts and answer the question, again, don't repeat a premise in question rather than prove your premise. Answer the question. The dual citizenship example, now mentioned and rephrased 4 times, proves you wrong. You will not engage that point no matter what. That is what is called dishonest.
  2. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    I've answered your convoluted question several times. You can't accept that Ted Cruz was never and will never be a Natural Born Citizen so you have resorted to cheap personal attacks on my honesty.
  3. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    It's not a lie. Neither of the two men pictured is eligible to be President because neither is a Natural Born Citizen. You brought their mothers into it as a diversionary tactic. It matters not where their mothers were born. It matters where the two men pictured were born. Nice try.
  4. Beth B

    Beth B Beth Marie

  5. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Well, no, that is not why you are dishonest. You are dishonest here because it was proven the two are no where near the same case. One is not a US citizen at all and can't be unless he renounces his Jordanian citizenship and goes through the process. the other was a citizen of the US at birth. The moms have everything to do with it. You don't address that point. It does not count to say it does not matter and then go back to the same thing you keep repeating but refuse to prove.
  6. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Saying you answered it is not the same as answering it. I would have ended this after the first 2 or three times on each issue, citizenship and eminent domain, but it is too important. Hopefully you and everyone on the forum, including me, will pray on it. Good night.
    Beth B likes this.
  7. Marygar

    Marygar Angels

    OMG Richard it didn't occur to me that Scalia was killed because of the natural born issue of both Obama and Cruz. Of course. Poor man!
  8. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    You are seriously confused.

    For the final time: Quit equating naturalized citizens with natural born citizens

    Ted Cruz is not and will never be a natural born citizen because he was born on foreign soil.

    Your point about the Jordanian is moot: I am not talking about naturalized citizens; I am talking about natural born citizens. Therefore, the comparison between Cruz and the Jordanian is valid.
  9. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

  10. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    No, for the last time, you are being seriously dishonest. I have explained, clearly and without confusion, at least 5 times, 2 different kinds of citizenship. You are the one who does not know what a naturalized citizen is. The naturalization process is one in which a legal process must be completed by someone who is not born a citizen. Period.

    is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).Jan 22, 2013

    You absolutely refused to answer the question about dual citizenship and then you repeat I don't know what "natural born" and "naturalized" mean, immediately after I explain what each means. That is what is called dishonest.
  11. CrewDog

    CrewDog Guest

    Katfalls, PotatoSack, Sam and 2 others like this.
  12. MarysChild

    MarysChild Principalities

    I don't think anyone wants to see the law go down the path of saying that a child of a US Citizen is not considered a Natural Born Citizen. What, we want pregnant women to have to remain within U.S. Borders or their children are not considered Natural Born Citizens? That is ridiculous.
    Sam likes this.
  13. Marygar

    Marygar Angels

    Oh my God, I know plenty of good friends who are U.S. Citizens, who are not loyal to the U.S. They come from a different country, and their loyalties are not here in America. What is it you can't comprehend on the laws our founders came up with? I have plenty of friends and family members who just came to the USA to have a baby to give their child citizenship and then move back to their country. That's the POINT. The law on natural born citizenship tries to avoid this for our President. It's that simple. I mean if you can't deal with the reality of our American law, and what it really means because you wanted Obama as President or a lyin' Cruz well - tough bananas.
  14. Marygar

    Marygar Angels

    We have seriously been taken over by a bunch of militant communists. I really fear for my country. I have never witnessed more ignorance with our own citizens than today. Serious problems lie ahead.
  15. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Once again, no. You brought up the Jordanian Prince issue. I have explained why it is absolutely incorrect. Saying a point is moot does not make it moot and repeating incessantly that someone does not know the definitions of Naturalized and Natural born citizenship when it has been repeatedly and clearly explained by that person is moot.

    that is what you refuse to understand.

    No on is confused; but you refuse to answer the question--about dual citizenship.

    Once again, Ted Cruz is a citizen because is was one at birth. At no point did he or his mom need to go through a legal process to become a citizen, he was one already. This is in no way the case of the Jordanian prince. To even bring him up makes absolutely no sense and proves my point. Since his mom gave up American citizenship, he is not a US citizen, period. If he wanted to be one, the prince is the one that would have to be naturalized. Ted Cruz did not need to be naturalized.

    In addition, you are not at all familiar with the intent of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were adherents to enlightenment philosophy. That is in every single text book on US history that exists--on the high school, let alone college level. The most universal enlightenment tenet is that people are born with natural rights. That means no one grants us rights, we are born with them. When thy used the word natural, they were using that sense. There is no better argument as to what their sense was. In that case, natural born, to the founding fathers, meant at birth. Ted Cruz was an American citizen at birth, period. Since he did not need to go through the process of naturalization, but was born a citizen at birth, he is natural born.

    In no way am I confusing the definitions of natural born and naturalized citizenship, please do not repeat that again, it has been clearly established now 7 times that I am using the correct definitions of both. You are not.

    Don't be rude and dismissive. Just say you can't answer the question, because you don't like the answer.
  16. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Wikipedia on natural born citizenship:
    In 2000, the Congressional Research Service(CRS), in one of its reports, wrote that most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in theDistrict of Columbia,Guam,Puerto Rico, and theU.S. Virgin Islands, are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.[72]

    This opinion was reaffirmed in a 2009 CRS report, which stated:

    Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting theNaturalization Act of 1790(expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled toU.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth".[73]

    This interpretation of natural born being the equivalent of citizen at birth (not naturalized) was again in a 2011 CRS report and a 2016 CRS report. The 2011 report stated:

    The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[3]

    The 2016 report similarly stated:

    Although the eligibility of U.S. born citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those bornoutsideof the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term "natural born" in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as thestatutorylaws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.[58]

    Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law atUC Davis School of Law, held the opinion that the term natural born is ambiguous and citizen granting authority has changed over the years. He notes that persons born outside the United States to U.S.-citizen parents have not always been born citizens.[74][75]For example, foreign-born children of persons who became naturalized citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were considered aliens. He also believed that children born in the Panama Canal Zone to at least one U.S. then-citizen between May 24, 1934, and August 4, 1937, when Congress granted citizenship to all such persons, were born without American citizenship. As a result, Chin argues, such persons (for constitutional and political purposes, most notably 2008 U.S. presidential candidateJohn McCain, born in the Canal Zone on August 28, 1936) may be considered "natural born" only if both parents were citizens.

    1. Congress possesses the authority either
      • to grant not only citizenship (as is undisputed) but the more specific status of a "natural born" citizen, with an affirmative answer raising the question of whether it can also act toremovethat status (and thereby disqualify individuals from the Presidency through action short of stripping them of their citizenship),
      • to issue "declarations" regarding the meaning of preexisting law (in this case, U.S. citizenship law between the aforementioned dates) and having binding authority, a claim likely to violateseparation of powersgiven the Constitution's provisions in Article III that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States[] shall be vested in one supreme Court[] and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" (Section 1) and that "[t]he judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority" (Section 2)
    2. the statute (currently codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403[a]) – which states only that "any person [fitting the above description] is declared to be a citizen of the United States" and neither
      • expressly claims that its declaration (whether a grant or an interpretation) has retroactive rather than merely prospective effect (contrast the locution "to have been a citizen of the United States [from birth]")
      • in any way mentions "natural born" status (instead conferring or recognizing the preexistence only of "citizen[ship]" generally) –
        in fact grants or recognizes citizenship from birth, let alone status as a natural born citizen (to whatever extent the requirements of that status exceed those for citizenship from birth).
  17. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    In 2009, G. Edward "Ted" White, Professor of Law at theUniversity of Virginia, stated the term refers to anyone born on U.S. soiloranyone born on foreign soil to American citizen parents.[76]

    Unlike Chin and White, Mary McManamon, Professor of Law atWidener University School of Law, has argued in theCatholic University Law Reviewthat, aside from children born to foreign ambassadors or to hostile soldiers on U.S. territory, both of whom owe allegiance to a different sovereign, a natural born citizen must be born in the United States. She claims thatcommon lawprovides an exception for the children of U.S. ambassadors born abroad and the children of American soldiers while engaged in hostilities. Thus, with these two limited exceptions, she equates "natural born" with "native born".[77][78]

    Professor Einer Elhauge ofHarvard Law Schoolagrees with Professor McManamon that "natural born" means "native born" and therefore the wording of the Constitution "does not permit his (Ted Cruz's) candidacy."[79]Professor Robert Clinton at theSandra Day O'Connor College of LawatArizona State Universityis also of the opinion that "natural born citizen" means "born in the United States."[80]University of ChicagoProfessorEric Posneralso concludes that "natural born citizen" means a "person born in the (United States)".[81]Former Chief Justice of theNew York Court of Appeals,Sol Wachtler, concludes the same.[82]

    American soil[edit]
    There is consensus among academics that those born on American soil are natural born citizens, orjus soli, regardless of parental citizenship status.

    In a 2008 article published by theMichigan Law Review, Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "there is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".[83]In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he clarified his original statement so that it would not be misunderstood as excluding the children of one citizen parent. In a footnote he explained, "based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen'." He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases ofjus solias the "conventional view".[84]Although Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments weren't "crazy", he believes "the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen."[85]

    Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, has remarked "There's [sic] some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."[86]

    Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University, has commented "It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S."[85]

    Chin concurred with that assessment, stating, "there is agreement that 'natural born citizens' include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment."[87]

    Similarly,Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by theIndiana Court of Appeals, which had concluded "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents".[88][89]

    Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate's parents is irrelevant.[90]
  18. MarysChild

    MarysChild Principalities

    I don't care about Obama or Cruz. I just think it's ridiculous if a child of a US Citizen isn't considered "Naturally Born" if they happen to be out of the country when the child is born. "Loyalty" to America can't be judged by whether or not you are born in America.

    Also, most interpreters have, long before the issue of Cruz came up, considered a child of a US Citizen to be a Natural Born Citizen, even if not born in US territory. Even in the British usage of "Natural Born" in the 1700's followed this usage.
    Sam likes this.
  19. Marygar

    Marygar Angels

    Well too bad, it's the LAW!!!!! A Natural Born citizen is one who was born in the USA territory to TWO CITIZENS at the time of his birth.

    Cruz and Obama are not natural born citizens.

  20. Marygar

    Marygar Angels

    I mean Dawn do you even read what you post?????? "John McCain, born in the Canal Zone on Aug 28, 1936 may be considered "natural born" only if BOTH parents were citizens."
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page