Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
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The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795.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Which has since been repealed by various other laws Spider Jerusalem Jan 2016 #12
Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 unc70 Jan 2016 #28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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ted Cruz is not eligible ...»Reply #63