General Discussion

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)

30. Not really the end of the argument

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 07:11 AM

Jan 2016

That law was contemporary with the Constitution (1790); it was passed by a Congress which included members of the Constitutional Convention. The wording of that law would indicate that the understanding of "natural born citizen" as intended in the Constitution is "one born to US citizen parents".

There is sufficient evidence of precedent here in British law (which would have affected the understanding of "natural born" of the authors of the Constitution); see the Foreign and Protestants Naturalization Act of 1708, which says: "the children of natural-born subjects (born abroad) shall be taken to be natural-born subjects". https://archive.org/stream/statutesatlarge00britgoog#page/n506/mode/2up

Continuing to make the same ignorant and wrong argument doesn't make it not wrong.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

117 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president. [View all] elleng Jan 2016 OP

KARMA has spoken underthematrix Jan 2016 #1

This person is not a very good constitutional law professor. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #2

'Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States elleng Jan 2016 #3

It is very depressing... Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #4

Doing it again, ad hominem. Are you an attorney? elleng Jan 2016 #7

You keep repeating that as though it makes it true Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #9

I think I "get" where both sides are coming from. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #21

You've got the right question, even tho you Hassin Bin Sober! elleng Jan 2016 #23

It's already defined in contemporary statute law (Naturalization Act 1790) Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #24

You keep ignoring the Act of 1795 unc70 Jan 2016 #50

I am an attorney, and here's why I disagree Jim Lane Jan 2016 #81

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jim Lane. elleng Jan 2016 #82

A vested right in citizenship, but not natural born prayin4rain Jan 2016 #92

Whether you misunderstood something isn't clear because there is so little law on this point Jim Lane Jan 2016 #98

The fact that he had citizenship at birth due to his mother being a citizen, prayin4rain Jan 2016 #99

You've stated the issue correctly. Jim Lane Jan 2016 #109

Not every insult is an ad hominem. Act_of_Reparation Jan 2016 #104

problem is the founders could have used that term treestar Jan 2016 #107

No they didn't mean "born on US soil" Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #114

McManamon was on The Last Word moondust Jan 2016 #5

Yes, moondust, elleng Jan 2016 #8

Yes, I saw it and enjoyed it too. Stellar Jan 2016 #51

Yep. You'd think this would be obvious. grossproffit Jan 2016 #6

Constitutional law is not obvious. elleng Jan 2016 #10

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Angleae Jan 2016 #11

Which has since been repealed by various other laws Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #12

Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 unc70 Jan 2016 #28

See my comment about people who're too stupid to grasp the difference between "native-born"... Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #34

Not seeing a point here. Act_of_Reparation Jan 2016 #106

Act of 1795 only uses citizen, not natural born unc70 Jan 2016 #111

A pregnant woman in Boston boards a plane for Seattle alcibiades_mystery Jan 2016 #13

No, they are not 'natural born citizens,' elleng Jan 2016 #15

Yes, they are Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #17

and it's NOT hard for me to interpret your continual responses as elleng Jan 2016 #18

One cannot have differences of opinion in regard to established facts. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #19

That statute was repealed. End of argument. unc70 Jan 2016 #29

Not really the end of the argument Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #30

Your assertion falls on your own argument unc70 Jan 2016 #47

You're really embarassing yourself here. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #71

You may think what you might, but ... unc70 Jan 2016 #76

"Natural-born citizens" are those who have citizenship at birth Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #80

Moops !!! Bonx Jan 2016 #85

Of course they are alcibiades_mystery Jan 2016 #37

Your example is different because the child has TWO citizen parents. Jim Lane Jan 2016 #86

My example is a limit case to draw out the OP's position alcibiades_mystery Jan 2016 #94

Unfortunately, it's clear that the Constitution DOES give weight to "trivial accidents of birth" Jim Lane Jan 2016 #96

I will thrown this to the mix nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #97

That has never been litigated treestar Jan 2016 #117

This is not an argument that you can win. WillowTree Jan 2016 #14

Right. Will be 'fun' to watch, if it ever actually gets to the courts. elleng Jan 2016 #16

Like I said, I don't care if it's true or not... backscatter712 Jan 2016 #46

So do I! elleng Jan 2016 #49

Yes he is. Turbineguy Jan 2016 #20

You've got it, elleng Jan 2016 #22

That's right! Wish something would derail that nasty little troll's campaign. SammyWinstonJack Jan 2016 #40

Plus... world wide wally Jan 2016 #25

A natural born asshole? NobodyHere Jan 2016 #27

This shit was stupid when they threw it at obama, and it's just as stupid against Cruz Scootaloo Jan 2016 #26

It wsa not the same with Obama malaise Jan 2016 #48

But the reasoning was the same. yellowcanine Jan 2016 #54

Clearly they knew that his mother and grandfather (a WW2 veteran) malaise Jan 2016 #59

His Mother was a US citizen of sharp_stick Jan 2016 #31

The problem is that "natural born citizen" has never been defined. Vinca Jan 2016 #32

there's a question about that too. hobbit709 Jan 2016 #35

You can be a citizen of both the US and Canada at the same time (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #39

That's not true of Obama. Jim Lane Jan 2016 #83

Apparently, Lawrence Tribe thinks it's an 'unsettled' point of law HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #33

And I agree with Tribe nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #89

Your foresight, and edge on the news may be much better than mine. HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #90

Canadians have allowed foreig cotizens nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #91

But wouldn't that only be true if she so voted before he was born? HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #93

I know and why this has to end up in a damn court nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #95

Sweet mother of Jeebus........... Takket Jan 2016 #36

I would simply strike "natural born", Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #38

Wow, I Like That ProfessorGAC Jan 2016 #41

Would require an Amendment to Constitution unc70 Jan 2016 #53

Well, yes, the post I was replying to was about amending the Constitution (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #56

President Arnold Schwarzenegger exboyfil Jan 2016 #66

I'm not sure that any constitutional amendment on who is eligible to be president Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #67

Why would you want to spoil all of the fun, we could just be getting started. A Simple Game Jan 2016 #79

this is just getting silly - of course he is a natural-born citizen as he was a US citizen at birth DrDan Jan 2016 #42

KARMA! KARMA! KARMA! PROCEED, RETHUGLICANS! mfcorey1 Jan 2016 #43

Interesting. prayin4rain Jan 2016 #44

and wait for 'the' case to arise. elleng Jan 2016 #61

I Hope Democrats Stay Out of This One SDJay Jan 2016 #45

Yep, it's kind of ridiculous and no way should any of our candidates touch it, Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #58

"Cruz was naturalized at birth." Well, I am not a Constit. Lawyer, but that sounds like yellowcanine Jan 2016 #52

Ted Cruz needs to produce his birth certificate UCmeNdc Jan 2016 #55

He did, and he's not. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #57

Looks like it says Canadian to me UCmeNdc Jan 2016 #62

Nobody is claiming that he was born in the US, including him (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #63

That would be because he wasn't born in the US. He was born in Canada. No one disputes that. WillowTree Jan 2016 #64

Not necessarily true that someone born abroad to a US citizen is automatically a US citizen. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #68

+1 B Calm Jan 2016 #108

Thankfully, we have this constitutional law professor to tell us what the founders intended. hughee99 Jan 2016 #60

We apparently have a progressive-birther contingent too Bonx Jan 2016 #65

The Constitution requires that you be a "natural born citizen" TeddyR Jan 2016 #73

Cruz is eligible. Next. Bonx Jan 2016 #74

See post #28: elleng Jan 2016 #72

With all due respect, the writer in the OP link was suggesting that they know what the founders hughee99 Jan 2016 #75

In 1795 they repealed the Act of 1790 unc70 Jan 2016 #77

See my post above on this. hughee99 Jan 2016 #78

Even that reads TeddyR Jan 2016 #103

"Children" is plural. Does that mean there needs to be hughee99 Jan 2016 #105

No legal training here, but as I understand it, foreign born children hedgehog Jan 2016 #69

Yes, and that's essentially from where the Professor's conclusion comes. elleng Jan 2016 #70

I got a better question nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #84

Acquisition of foreign citizenship is not sufficient to extinguish existing US citizenship Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #87

It still raises questions nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #88

how utterly dumb and calculating of the gopE not to get this squared away before primaries restorefreedom Jan 2016 #100

I love it too, as an attorney. elleng Jan 2016 #113

it appears that trump and cruz are 1 and 2 in polls restorefreedom Jan 2016 #115

I'll only cry if there IS no controversy! elleng Jan 2016 #116

The answer does not exist yet and will not until the SCOTUS interprets "natural born citizen," as merrily Jan 2016 #101

Right, there won't be a final answer until there's a proper 'case and controversy.' elleng Jan 2016 #110

The time of Queen Elizabeth I is what I think is relevant, not 1787. merrily Jan 2016 #112

This individual has an argument that is BlueMTexpat Jan 2016 #102