America, my density has brought me to you.
ADDED: Actually, it looked like this:
I'm running for President and I hope to earn your support! pic.twitter.com/0UTqaIoytP
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 23, 2015March 23, 2015
"What I'd like to know is if he was separated at birth from George McFly."
Says John, commenting (with pictures) on the news story "Ted Cruz to Announce on Monday He Plans to Run for President."
America, my density has brought me to you.
ADDED: Actually, it looked like this:
America, my density has brought me to you.
ADDED: Actually, it looked like this:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
68 comments:
I see the resemblance. Off to shovel now.
Ted Cruz is not an eligible natural born Citizen. He was born in Canada, and admittedly had Canadian citizenship until only recently.
Ted Cruz was NATURALIZED at birth, according to 8 US Code 1401 (1), simce he was born to a US Citizen mother. and was "subject to the jurisdiction of the US"--- referring to the 14th Amendment and the holding of Wong Kim Ark.
Anyone who gets their citizenship rights via the 14th Amendment is NATURALIZED. Those that are natural born Citizens get their citizenship rights from A2S1C5. They are born in the US of US Citizen parents, what else would they be? (See Schneider v. Rusk and Minor v. Happersett, 88 IS 162, 167 (1894)). All have the same rights, except only those that get their citizenship through A2S1C5 are POTUS eligible (See Schneider v. Rusk, and recently Hassan v. FEC)
The requirement is not "citizen at birth", which obviously could be a NATURALIZED Citizen, it is "natural born Citizen" "law prof".
Cruz was ADMITTEDLY born with 3 allegiances, Cuban, American, and Canadian, which does not comport with the purpose of the requirement, i.e prevention of foreign influence. (See Federalist 68)
Walker breathes a sigh of relief.
@Mick - Is this not the exact same legal argument that applies to our current PotUS? What is the status of the lawsuit removing him from office?
I like Cruz (in general), but think this is real issue. One of the other candidates should do us all a favor and sue to kick him off the ballot or out of a caucus at the earliest opportunity so the question can be settled.
"Is this not the exact same legal argument that applies to our current PotUS? What is the status of the lawsuit removing him from office?"
It's a little different, as Obama was born in the U.S. so even if neither of his parents were citizens he'd still be a natural born citizen. I don't know what the state of the law is regarding Ted Cruz's citizenship--I was under the impression that it was settled that as his parents were U.S. citizens at the time he was born, he is considered a natural born citizen even if he was born outside the U.S. (same as John McCain, though the Canal Zone was U.S. territory so that may have counted as "born in the U.S.").
My expectations have dropped.
I'm not so much concerned about whether the President was born in America, I just would like a President that actually likes America.
I am Laslo.
I think Cruz's chances of winning are about the same as Huckabee's, but this will at least make the primaries a lot more interesting.
The challenge for whomever DOES become the nominee is to avoid the trap of unconvincingly pandering to the far right and scuttling his chances in the general election. The Democrats' best shot next year will be convincing middle roaders that the Republicans are irresponsible extremists so that while they may not be thrilled with a "third Obama term" and all this Warren-esque populism, the Democrats will be the more small-c conservative choice.
"I'm not so much concerned about whether the President was born in America, I just would like a President that actually likes America."
I'd be fine with a president who is nonchalant about America, maybe "playing hard to get" with America, so long as he actually serves the country well because he doesn't want to do a lousy job. After all, leftists always say they care about the poor--and maybe they do--but that doesn't mean they're good for the poor. Much like Ike may have loved Tina, he wasn't good for her (though he did help get her career started, which is more than I can say for the Left vis a vis America).
Cruz is intelligent and savvy enough to go into the lion's den and come out with a new pelt.
Did you see the absolute thrashing he gave Mika on Morning Joe the other day?
Ted Cruz running for president is a boon to the Republican Party - the media can focus on hating him and he'll be able to fight them to a draw...meanwhile Scott Walker will get the nomination and be seen as a moderate, good government type.
"Much like Ike may have loved Tina..."
That is why I chose "like" instead of "love."
Few politicians seen to 'like' the people they hope to govern -- the people are simply tools to use in the aggregate for obtaining and keeping power.
I don't insist that the people I like, change.
I am Laslo.
Brando said...
"I don't know what the state of the law is regarding Ted Cruz's citizenship--I was under the impression that it was settled that as his parents were U.S. citizens at the time he was born, he is considered a natural born citizen even if he was born outside the U.S."
"It's complicated." English law at the time of the framing, which supplies the content of the term "natural-born," held that the children of an English father born beyond the realm because the father was away on the King's errand, were "natural-born" subjects. In Cruz's case, however, it was the mother who was the American citizen, and the family was not abroad on the errand of the United States. What difference does that make (even assuming that the courts would adopt, as they should, an originalist approach)? Beats me. The question is, is Cruz a good enough candidate to risk a constitutional crisis over him? I don't think so.
Thanks, Brando. You're right. In all the "Cruz is a Canadian", I'd forgotten it was the where he was born. Probably closer to the John McCain scenario. Cruz is, I think, smart enough to know if this could sideline him. Tank?, I think, is right. Challenge it early and take it off the table.
Karen of Texas said...
"@Mick - Is this not the exact same legal argument that applies to our current PotUS? What is the status of the lawsuit removing him from office?"
The Judiciary shut me down by lying in the Original case (saying that Florida election contest statutes do not apply to POTUS elections, when the Fl. Supreme Court (and Bush v. Gore) explicitly said that ALL Fl. statutes apply to POTUS elections (Palm Bch. Co. Canvassing v. Harris (2000) @footnote 20)).
They denied standing, and did not rule on the merits.
After that I was shut down in Fl. by "per curiam affirmed" in the Appeals with no opinion, and the US SC refused to hear the case.
That is how they shut you down, by offering NO OPINION.
Do you think it is a coincidence that 3 potential "R" team candidates (Cruz Rubio and Jindal) are not eligible, and born of foreign parentage, like the Usurper Obama?
They are all protecting him.
Karen of Texas said...
"In all the 'Cruz is a Canadian'...."
Well, he's surely an American citizen, but the question is whether he is a naturalized citizen, by operation of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, or a "natural-born" citizen as the founders would have understood that term way before section 1401 was enacted, way before the Fourteenth Amendment, and indeed even before the Naturalization Act of 1790, the United States' first statutory word on the subject.
Maybe we actually need a President who was not born in the United States.
You know, like a Polish or former East German immigrant or someone would actually understand what the hell the promise of this country is all about.
Maybe a Cambodian who survived The KIlling Fields.
Simon said,
It's complicated." English law at the time of the framing, which supplies the content of the term "natural-born," held that the children of an English father born beyond the realm because the father was away on the King's errand, were "natural-born" subjects. In Cruz's case, however, it was the mother who was the American citizen, and the family was not abroad on the errand of the United States. What difference does that make (even assuming that the courts would adopt, as they should, an originalist approach)? Beats me. The question is, is Cruz a good enough candidate to risk a constitutional crisis over him? I don't think so."
Of course you are wrong.
Natural born Citizen is defined explicitly by ORIGINAL COMMON LAW (law of nations, See Sosa v. Alvarez), where the exact term exists and is defined as one born in a country of parents who are its citizens.
No mental gymnastics are needed to make a "subject" a "citizen". It is not that complicated.
Cruz was NATURALIZED by 8 US Code 1401 (1), since he was born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US".
If the purpose of the requirement is "prevention of foreign influence" then it is impossible that one born with 3 allegiances is eligible.
(statutory construction--- the purpose of a requirement is a good insight into its meaning.).
Simon said...
Surely he is an American citizen - unless you listen/read some Democrat spitting points. Just like Gowdy never actually "sent" a snail mail letter, something gets lost, or purposely twisted, in translation.
I should point out again, by the by, that while Mick is a nut, a broken clock is right twice a day, and despite the mangled carnage of attempted citations that litter his posts, he is right to flag Cruz. He's also right to point out that standing is going to be a major problem for those who hope that there's some way to litigate it. Well. Except for the scenario in which Cruz gets the nomination and beats Hillary, in which case some Obama-appointed judge will throw the courthouse door open so wide that it would make the SCRAP court blush.
Simon said "Well, he's surely an American citizen, but the question is whether he is a naturalized citizen, by operation of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, or a "natural-born" citizen as the founders would have understood that term way before section 1401 was enacted, way before the Fourteenth Amendment, and indeed even before the Naturalization Act of 1790, the United States' first statutory word on the subject."
8 US code 1401 is a NATURALIZATION statute, as is the 14th Amendment.
If Cruz needed 8 US Code 1401 to be a citizen, then he was naturalized.
Naturalized citizens get citizenship rights via the 14th Amendment. Natural born citizens get them from A2S1C5. Their rights are the same, save for eligibility for POTUS (See Schneifer v. Rusk)
the world is on fire...and kids are playing baseball?
this will not stand.
Karen of Texas said...
"Surely he is an American citizen - unless you listen/read some Democrat spitting points."
No one disputes that he is an American citizen. That isn't the issue. The issue is the requirement of Article II that a Presidential candidate be not merely a citizen but a natural-born citizen; the founders were well-aware (even in advance of the United States enacting any statutory provision for naturalization) that citizens may be natural-born, naturalized, or denizized.
Mick might or might not be right. I have not researched it. But "it's complicated" is not what you want in your candidate. That is why someone with standing has to challenge him early. The last thing Rep's or conservatives want is 25,000 liberal democrat lawyers and law professors opining on this all through the election cycle, and especially after Cruz is selected as the nominee (if that happens).
===========================
PS: If Mick thinks that this kind of thing will be "simple," he is showing a misunderstanding of how our Courts work (look at the O'Care decision, or Wickard, or Roe v Wade, for example).
"Maybe we actually need a President who was not born in the United States."
I could get on board with that--immigrants provide a unique perspective and surely shouldn't be ruled out as presidents simply because they were born elsewhere. I think the original requirement was put in there to make sure no agents of foreign governments finagled their way into the presidency, but if we're dumb enough to elect King George III's evil butler, then we deserve to be reabsorbed into the British Empire.
Simon said...
"I should point out again, by the by, that while Mick is a nut, a broken clock is right twice a day, and despite the mangled carnage of attempted citations that litter his posts, he is right to flag Cruz. He's also right to point out that standing is going to be a major problem for those who hope that there's some way to litigate it. Well. Except for the scenario in which Cruz gets the nomination and beats Hillary, in which case some Obama-appointed judge will throw the courthouse door open so wide that it would make the SCRAP court blush."
You have never used any proof except "British Common Law" which does not define natural born Citizen. Law of nations (Original US Common Law ) does.
Minor v. Happersett explicitly held that a natural born Citizen is one born in the US to US Citizen parents, according to the "Common Law" (law of nations).
Federalist 68 defines nbC as a "creature of our own", which certainly could not mean one born of foreigners. It also says the purpose is prevention of foreign influence.
Schneider v. Rusk said explicitly that there are only 2 types of "Citizens" Naturalized, and natural born. Naturalized citizens get rights from the 14th Amendment, and natural born from A2S1C5. Only the natural born are eligible for POTUS.
Cruz certainly got his citizenship rights through the 14th Amendment, thus he is not a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS.
There, plain enuf? I notice you have NEVER COUNTERED or Disproven any of those facts.
As for "standing", it is not the Congress' responsibility, except in very limited circumstances, to vet the eligibility of POTUS candidates (See A1S5C1- congress is responsible for the elections and returns of their own members).
Each state is responsible for Federal elections, and state officers take an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. That oath creates a responsibility (SEE Marbury v. Madison) that they surely are not performing.
"Standing" is being used as a bludgeon.
Tank said...
"But 'it's complicated' is not what you want in your candidate."
Correct. That's my point; it's even more awkward when it's a guy who's making a fuss about how important the Constitution is to him. The optics are poor.
" That is why someone with standing has to challenge him early."
I doubt that anyone has standing to challenge him early, and I seriously doubt that any court is going to accept that any litigant has standing.
"The last thing Rep's or conservatives want is 25,000 liberal democrat lawyers and law professors opining on this all through the election cycle, and especially after Cruz is selected as the nominee (if that happens)."
Quite. Because although the courts are skeptical about injecting themselves into such questions, it's worth keeping in mind that Democrats have a much broader view of standing than do conservative judges, and if the stakes are high enough, they'll find a judge somewhere.
Tank said...
"Mick might or might not be right. I have not researched it. But "it's complicated" is not what you want in your candidate. That is why someone with standing has to challenge him early. The last thing Rep's or conservatives want is 25,000 liberal democrat lawyers and law professors opining on this all through the election cycle, and especially after Cruz is selected as the nominee (if that happens).
===========================
PS: If Mick thinks that this kind of thing will be "simple," he is showing a misunderstanding of how our Courts work (look at the O'Care decision, or Wickard, or Roe v Wade, for example)."
I know how the courts work. They use standing as a bludgeon to not decide the case on the merits if they are too cowardly to. Then they shut you down by not issuing an opinion. I had perfect standing, given by statute, so they had to lie about it (Judge Terry Lewis).
Have you ever filed a case in the US SC?
Tank said...
"If Mick thinks that this kind of thing will be "simple," he is showing a misunderstanding of how our Courts work."
Well, yeah. Surely you have noticed by now that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about--the mangled citation forms, the overread and misunderstood cases, the haphazard misuse of quasi-legal terminology; he's just a layman with an ax to grind on this point. He doesn't understand, but he's angry, and boy, you know, if you're angry about something that is just as good as knowing what you're talking about these days.
the world is on fire...and kids are playing baseball?
Stock footage of the apocalypse is hard to find ...
or it's Morning in America.
I do find it ironic that Mick's avatar is of someone who could also never be President.
Mick
You prove my point. While arguing that it is "simple," you could not even get to the point of arguing on the merits in court.
It's not about whether you or I think that you are correct (about standing or the merits).
@Simon
I'm still waiting for you to disprove Minor v. Happersett, Federalist 68, that law of nations is "Original Common Law", or that Cruz was naturalized.
Tank said,
"Mick
You prove my point. While arguing that it is "simple," you could not even get to the point of arguing on the merits in court.
It's not about whether you or I think that you are correct (about standing or the merits)."
I argued the merits, I had explicit standing, given by statute. They ("Judge" Terry Lewis) lied, and said that the laws don't apply. (A very Kafkaian situation).
My eyes are totally open to the politically corrupt nature of the courts. They are cowards, who did not want to make a ruling.
Simon,
"Well, yeah. Surely you have noticed by now that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about--the mangled citation forms, the overread and misunderstood cases, the haphazard misuse of quasi-legal terminology; he's just a layman with an ax to grind on this point. He doesn't understand, but he's angry, and boy, you know, if you're angry about something that is just as good as knowing what you're talking about these days."
So why can't you disprove any of it. Still waiting...
Well out here in California, Governor Moonbeam Jerry Brown (D-Mars) has declared Cruz ineligible to run for President because Cruz doesn't believe in global warming.
Considering what Governor Moonbeam and his ilk have done to California in the name of global warming, I'd say that the converse is true. Anybody who actually believes in global warming (and who can maintain an intellectual straight face while so doing) is unfit to run for President.
Actually we've come to a place where we have a church of environmentalism, and if you are not among the believers, you are a heretic and should be cast into the deepest pits of environmental hell.
Well, color me ready for some asbestos underwear, because I am a heretic.
Abolish Obamacare and the IRS. Doesn't subscribe to the catastrophic global warming lunacy.
The only candidate I've seen with the intelligence and integrity to actually move the country away from the abyss rather than toward it, including Scott Walker who is another standard brand politician.
Ted Cruz is eligible. He was a naturalized citizen because his mother was a citizen.
UNTRIBALIST said...
"[I]n what categories do Washington, Adams, and Jefferson fall as they were born citizens of the British Empire before the entity known as the United States existed and were elected to federal office after the Constitution with all its eligibility provisions was enacted?"
They are "grandfathered in"; the clause provides in full that "[n]o person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." (Emphasis added.)
jr565 said...
"Ted Cruz is eligible. He was a naturalized citizen because his mother was a citizen."
That is, in the literal sense, incoherent. If Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen, as your second sentence says, then he is not eligible, because it is precisely between naturalized and natural-born citizens that the clause distinguishes.
I'm glad Cruz threw his hat in the ring. He is, at this time, my number one choice for President. Of course, that is subject to change depending on how he handles himself.
As to whether he is a Natural Born US Citizen? Obviously he is. But that's just a fun distraction for the loons out there.
The real question is, can a true conservative, someone the media likes to call the far right, actually get elected these days?
Given that any candidate who runs under the Republican banner gets smeared as being a loony member of the far right, I dont think it matters to most people.
We have learned to correct for the imbalance of the media.
What will matter is how he carries himself. Will he say dumb things when asked if he believes in evolution, or punt, or throw fellow conservative and Republicans under the bus?
I'm excited about a Cruz candidacy.
Remember how so many of the Althouse followers said that Mary Burke wasn't ready for prime time because the GOP grabbed her domain name before she did? It'll be interesting to see them "pull a Scott Walker" (that is what we call "flip flopping" here in Wisconsin) on that.
http://www.tedcruz.com/
And then there are the problems with his actual website:
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8277131/ted-cruz-ssl-nigerian-prince
First out of the gates and already the gaffes are piling up. Going to be an interesting primary season.
jr565,
If you're a citizen at birth, you're a natural born citizen. If you become a citizen later, you're a naturalized citizen.
@ Simon,
So disprove that "Original Common Law" is law of nations, and defines natural born Citizen.
Disprove that Cruz was naturalized by 8 US Code 1401 (1).
Disprove that the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett defined natural born Citizen.
Still waiting...
Every time I see Mick posting about Natural Born Citizens I think about the 1981 movie "Student Bodies" and Mr. Dunkin's bizarre obsession with horse head bookends.
Madisonfella,
You may want to see the update at vox.
Oops!
I wouldn't trust Vox to give accurate information. Makes you look stupid.
@Eric - The update about nigerian-prince.com being recently removed from the security certificate was part of the article when I posted the link. What exactly do you find to be inaccurate in the article?
eric said...
"As to whether he is a Natural Born US Citizen? Obviously he is. But that's just a fun distraction for the loons out there."
Right, because if there's one principle to which Ted Cruz has dedicated his career, and with which he would want to be associated, it's that what the Constitution says is "just a fun distraction for the loons out there." That's certainly the meat of his argument in Medellin, for example. *eyeroll*
eric said...
jr565,
"If you're a citizen at birth, you're a natural born citizen. If you become a citizen later, you're a naturalized citizen."
No, you're a natural-born citizen if you're a natural-born citizen. If you are a naturalized citizen, you are a naturalized citizen no matter when that naturalization took place. So, for example, Barack Obama and Marco Rubio are natural-born citizens because they were born in America and the law of England held that the children of aliens born within the king's realm were natural-born subjects unless they were in the realm on the errand of a foreign power. (Obama's claim is even stronger because his mother was a citizen.) Likewise, John McCain is a natural-born citizen either because the PCZ was American territory at the time of is birth or, even were it not, because his family was abroad on the errand of the United States. By contrast, a person whose citizenship arises from 8 USC 1401(f) is a naturalized citizen, and it doesn't matter at what age they were "found" in the United States. A natural-born citizen is, almost by definition, someone whose citizenship does not arise from a statutory provision.
The birther loonies will insist that neither Rubio nor Obama are natural-born citizens, because they're kooks and they don't have the faintest understanding of the law. But a broken watch is right twice every day, and in Cruz's case, there is a substantial question, no matter how nutty the people who want to raise it may be.
k said...
@ Simon,
So disprove that "Original Common Law" is law of nations, and defines natural born Citizen.
Disprove that Cruz was naturalized by 8 US Code 1401 (1).
Disprove that the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett defined natural born Citizen.
Still waiting...
While Minor makes it clear that children born in the US to two citizens of the US are natural born citizens, it expressly declines to consider variations involving other scenarios as not necessary for decision of that case. So Minor would not govern the Obama or Cruz scenarios.
Opps, should be Mick said...
Tank said,
"While Minor makes it clear that children born in the US to two citizens of the US are natural born citizens, it expressly declines to consider variations involving other scenarios as not necessary for decision of that case. So Minor would not govern the Obama or Cruz scenarios."
And of course you are wrong again. It did not determine if those other variations were "CITIZENS" (members of the nation), because it did not need to.
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." Ibid @167, 168
The holding determined who were the natural born Citizens and who were the foreigners, but left who is a citizen (member of the nation) for other cases or Congresses. Wong Kim Ark filled part of it, holding that the children of legal resident aliens were citizens, do to the temporary allegiance that comes with legal inhabitance of the parents. Therefore those children were born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" (like Cruz, born to a US Citizen mother abroad), and were naturalized at birth.
Mick does not know how to read "the law." It is obvious.
Simon said,
"No, you're a natural-born citizen if you're a natural-born citizen. If you are a naturalized citizen, you are a naturalized citizen no matter when that naturalization took place. So, for example, Barack Obama and Marco Rubio are natural-born citizens because they were born in America and the law of England held that the children of aliens born within the king's realm were natural-born subjects unless they were in the realm on the errand of a foreign power. (Obama's claim is even stronger because his mother was a citizen.) Likewise, John McCain is a natural-born citizen either because the PCZ was American territory at the time of is birth or, even were it not, because his family was abroad on the errand of the United States. By contrast, a person whose citizenship arises from 8 USC 1401(f) is a naturalized citizen, and it doesn't matter at what age they were "found" in the United States. A natural-born citizen is, almost by definition, someone whose citizenship does not arise from a statutory provision".
And of course you are wrong again. John McCain is not a natural born Citizen because he was born in the PCZ---military bases are NOT US territory (See 7FAM). He was naturalized by 8 US Code 1403.
Both Cruz, and Obama (if birth occurred in the US, and that still is not proven-- a pic on a website is proof of nothing) were naturalized at birth by 8 US Code 1401 (1), since they were born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US". They needed a statute just like someone "found" (8 US Code 1401 (f).
You are tying yourself in knots, which tends to happen when you lie.
British Common Law has nothing to do with who is a natural born Citizen, or who is a naturalized Citizen.
The Original Common Law of the US is law of nations, which explicitly defines nbC.
Tank said...
"Mick does not know how to read "the law." It is obvious".
And of course obviously you are wrong. I just posted the quote, and it says nothing about "nbC" only "citizen".
All nbCs are "citizens" but not all "Citizens" are nbcs.
You still cannot disprove anything I have said, and only use ad hominem and blanket statements which prove nothing.
eric said...
jr565,
"If you're a citizen at birth, you're a natural born citizen. If you become a citizen later, you're a naturalized citizen".
Wrong again. A "citizen at birth could be naturalized at birth by 8 US Code 1401, or 1403 for instance.
There are 3 ways to become naturalized--- By oath, by statute (either by birth or incorporation), and a minor, by naturalization of the parents.
Tank, right. The question in Minor wasn't about citizenship, it was about whether the law of Missouri, which restricted the franchise to men alone, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Mrs. Minor agued that suffrage was a privilege of citizenship, and that because women are citizens, Missouri's franchise law abridged a privilege guaranteed by that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To be sure, dicta in the opinion weighs the citizenship point, but the holding of the case is that restricting the franchise to men does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because (even assuming Minor to be a citizen) the franchise was not a privilege protected thereby.
And what, by the by, do those dicta say? Critically, the court affirms exactly the point that I have made, that the clause draws its content from the law of England: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1874). The birther kooks love to quote part of this language; but they pare it from context, overread it, and misrepresent it as the holding of the court when it is in fact nothing more than dictum.
So Minor's holding is irrelevant to these cases, and to the extent that any of its dicta are relevant, they affirm what I've been saying. Mick doesn't understand this because he hasn't read the case and he doesn't know the background that allows him to contextualize it properly.
Tank said...
Mick
"You prove my point. While arguing that it is "simple," you could not even get to the point of arguing on the merits in court".
Never said it was "simple". I witnessed the cowards and criminals in the judiciary
Simon said, "Tank, right. The question in Minor wasn't about citizenship, it was about whether the law of Missouri, which restricted the franchise to men alone, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Mrs. Minor agued that suffrage was a privilege of citizenship, and that because women are citizens, Missouri's franchise law abridged a privilege guaranteed by that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To be sure, dicta in the opinion weighs the citizenship point, but the holding of the case is that restricting the franchise to men does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because (even assuming Minor to be a citizen) the franchise was not a privilege protected thereby.
And what, by the by, do those dicta say? Critically, the court affirms exactly the point that I have made, that the clause draws its content from the law of England: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1874). The birther kooks love to quote part of this language; but they pare it from context, overread it, and misrepresent it as the holding of the court when it is in fact nothing more than dictum.
So Minor's holding is irrelevant to these cases, and to the extent that any of its dicta are relevant, they affirm what I've been saying. Mick doesn't understand this because he hasn't read the case and he doesn't know the background that allows him to contextualize it properly".
Spoken like a true OBOT, protecting Obama since 2008.
"you don't understand what the law says"
"That doesn't mean what you think it means"
All hallmarks of the Obama internet protection brigade.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar."
This is talking about Original Common Law-- i.e law of nations. Especially since that is not the definition you have espoused by BCL, which says that anyone born in the realm, regardless of parentage is a natural born SUBJECT. Again, you are tying yourself in knots (which tends to happen when you lie.)
The test performed In Minor was whether there was a right to vote before the 14th Amendment. First it had to be determined who were the class of citizens in the US prior to the 14th Amendment, since the founding, and whether Minor was one of that class, since that would be the standing issue.
The definition of nbC is a judicial determination in support of the holding (that no "right to vote existed before the 14th Amendment, since the 14A gave no "new rights" only reaffirmed existing ones), therefore precedent.
Try Again?
Madisonfella,
The whole point of the article was that the website isn't secure.
The update makes clear the website is secure.
Thus making a mockery of the original article.
I like Cruz, because he's quite conservative, smart and a bit of a geek - so sort of like me. I'm not sure it's a winning recipe for the General Election, however, and I also don't like creating a norm that it's acceptable for freshman Senators to run for President. He'd be a good VP choice for Walker, and make Walker look more like a centrist technocrat.
The update makes clear the website is secure
If you trust that update to be accurate then according to your own rules doesn't that make you look stupid?
I didn't read the earlier article so will have to take your word on what it said prior to the update, but there was more stuff (whats up with that nigerian-prince.com?) than just the missing icon when I linked it.
i admire cruz's moxie but i can't "imagine" that this lovechild of pat buchanan and pat robertson, who chose to announce his candidacy at jerry falwell's 'university' (of all places!) is who will have the national appeal to win the presidency in 2016.
I love how his logo resembles the Al Jazeera logo, kind of like an American flag and flame combined.
I plan to continue to ignore Ted Cruz.
What's the liberal mirror of a conservative 'firebrand'?
No one in the media will tell me.
Mick,
You're a fucking bore.
"Naturalized at birth" means being born an American citizen by statute, instead of by being born within the United States. In 1790 the first U.S. Congress gave birth-citizenship to children born abroad of two U.S. citizen parents, whom the statute said would be "natural born citizens." It was the 1790 Act that determined that John McCain is a natural born citizen and thus was eligible to run for President.
The wrinkle in the case of Ted Cruz is that he, like Barack Obama, had only one parent who was a US citizen when he was born. The 1790 Act does not apply to those who were born in another country having only one citizen parent. Cruz is saved, however, by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which in defining those persons who "shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth," included in that definition a person born abroad of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who has met specified conditions of residence in this country, except that a citizen naturalized at birth would lose their citizenship unless they came to the United States and were physically present here continuously for at least five years after age 14 and before age 28. Both Ted Cruz and a hypothetical Kenyan-born citizen qualify as natural born citizens under that statute.
Six years ago, Democrats relied on the 1952 Act to point out that even one citizen parent would fulfill the qualification, in order to obviate the question of whether Obama was born in the US (thus pulling the rug out of the birthers' argument that Obama was ineligible to be President if he wasn't born in this country), and since Ted Cruz supporters would now of course agree, the question is essentially decided (politically at least). I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to change their minds if Ted Cruz were nominated by the Republicans, but that would be a stretch even for them—not that that ever stops them. We'll see.
Eric said...
"It was the 1790 Act that determined that John McCain is a natural born citizen and thus was eligible to run for President."
One could argue that the 1790 Act created natural-born citizens, perhaps, rather than conferring naturalization at birth. That's a valid position, albeit problematic. But McCain was a natural-born citizen with or without that statute, either because the PCZ counted as American territory (as it did, just as, say, Gibraltar was a realm of the crown) and/or because as the child of American citizens sent abroad on the errand of the government (just as ambassadors under English law).
The 1952 Act, however, does nothing for anyone in this regard. Even if we stipulate that Congress could do an end-run around the natural-born citizen requirement by enacting statutes that confer that status (as the 1790 act purports to do), the 1952 act purports to do no such thing. To say that one is a national and citizen of the United States at birth is not to say (as the 1790 act did, in as many words) that one is a natural-born citizen.
These differences may seem subtle, but they are important and durable. Unless we're to abandon all the progress we've made on orginalism, a fight that Ted Cruz has himself been a part of, the controlling principle is this: Cruz is eligible--and I take no position on that--if the law of England would have held that an Englishman born outside of the King's realm to a foreign father and a monther who was a British subject would have been a natural-born subject.
Post a Comment