Cruz can't run for the Presidency

[Phatscotty]

Sooooo, you are a flood-denier AND a birther? Sorry but I have to seriously ask, do you also believe the earth is flat?

[Bernie Sanders]

I told you guys a long time ago Cruz can't be president.

Yes, but he meets all the qualifications to be Prime Minister of Canada.

[notyou2]

I told you guys a long time ago Cruz can't be president.

Yes, but he meets all the qualifications to be Prime Minister of Canada.

We just threw out an asshole. We won't be electing another for quite awhile.

[Bernie Sanders]

I told you guys a long time ago Cruz can't be president.

Yes, but he meets all the qualifications to be Prime Minister of Canada.

We just threw out an asshole. We won't be electing another for quite awhile.

By the way, congrats on a getting a decent Prime Minister!

[Bernie Sanders]

This thread is about Dominic Cruz, right?

Is he Canadian too?

[jgordon1111]

Hmm, Not don't be to sure of that just yet

[Bernie Sanders]

Hmm, Not don't be to sure of that just yet

Man you must have some great dope!

[notyou2]

Hmm, Not don't be to sure of that just yet

It may be a little too early to tell but so far he hasn't:
- muzzled the press corps
- none of his cronies have been charged with any crimes
- no major election irregularities
- he hasn't thumbed his nose at any judicial authorities
- government paid scientists haven't been silenced
- long-form census is reinstated
- etc, etc, etc

[morleyjoe]

Cruz might not be able to run, but anyone on CC can! Check it out:

viewtopic.php?f=90&t=216592

[tzor]

First of all, there is nothing in the constitution that says someone cannot run for the Presidency. There is this thing about actually holding the office.

[Bernie Sanders]

First of all, there is nothing in the constitution that says someone cannot run for the Presidency. There is this thing about actually holding the office.

Yes there is, but that would require you to read a little line in the Constitution.

[tzor]

Yes there is, but that would require you to read a little line in the Constitution.

You mean this one?

No 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I highlighted the part in bold. Doesn't mention running ... the notion of running isn't even in the constitution ...

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Eligibility only is a consideration at the point where the electors have to cast their votes, going strictly by the Constitution.

[Metsfanmax]

Well since we're apparently only allowed to read the original text of the Constitution and not use common sense or judicial interpretation after the fact, then I guess no one is eligible because "natural born citizen" is never defined.

[tzor]

Well since we're apparently only allowed to read the original text of the Constitution and not use common sense or judicial interpretation after the fact, then I guess no one is eligible because "natural born citizen" is never defined.

No, technically speaking Vattel's "law of nations" (originally in French) was the defacto definition for international legal terms and was actually cited in later congressional laws regarding citizenship. Given the fact, however, that there are only two types of citizens (natural born and naturalized), and since it was never specifically declared otherwise, any definition of citizenship that is applied at birth must apply to the constitution's use of the term.

Congress again confirmed jus sanguinis citizenship birthright in the Naturalization Act of 1795 (January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)) “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” While this leaves out the term natural-born, it does declare them to be citizens by-birth through their parents and therefore do not need the process of naturalization to become citizens.

[jgordon1111]

Well since we're apparently only allowed to read the original text of the Constitution and not use common sense or judicial interpretation after the fact, then I guess no one is eligible because "natural born citizen" is never defined.

No, technically speaking Vattel's "law of nations" (originally in French) was the defacto definition for international legal terms and was actually cited in later congressional laws regarding citizenship. Given the fact, however, that there are only two types of citizens (natural born and naturalized), and since it was never specifically declared otherwise, any definition of citizenship that is applied at birth must apply to the constitution's use of the term.

Congress again confirmed jus sanguinis citizenship birthright in the Naturalization Act of 1795 (January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)) “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” While this leaves out the term natural-born, it does declare them to be citizens by-birth through their parents and therefore do not need the process of naturalization to become citizens.

Tzor you realize that you are banging your head against a brick wall here, it doesn't matter how much proof you lay out,everyone wants to believe what and how they want because its their right, defending the constitution on one hand while denying it on the other,strange isn't it, those who always announce their freedom turn around and ignore the exact document that gives it to them, When it says something they don't like

[Bernie Sanders]

Yes there is, but that would require you to read a little line in the Constitution.

You mean this one?

No 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I highlighted the part in bold. Doesn't mention running ... the notion of running isn't even in the constitution ...

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Eligibility only is a consideration at the point where the electors have to cast their votes, going strictly by the Constitution.

Natural born in the territories of the USA. None of the Founding Fathers were born as American citizens, so the meaning is clear, Mom had to drop your @ss on US territories AKA ANCHOR BABIES! Run for candidacy, but that's legal? You need to get some sleep.

f*ck, you Republicans have been birthers once we got a BLACK President. Also, crying about the bad practice of MEXICANS giving birth in America and how this law must be changed in some way.


Ted Cruz is eligible to be Prime Minister of Canada, but as the top dog [Donald J. Trump] in the GOP says, Cruz can't be President of the USA.

[tzor]

f*ck, you Republicans have been birthers once we got a BLACK President. Also, crying about the bad practice of MEXICANS giving birth in America and how this law must be changed in some way.

No, in fact it was the Republicans in the Senate who wanted to propose a sense of the senate resolution that Obama was a natural born citizen back when he was first elected. It was never a part of the party proper. The same people who were against Obama are now against Cruz.

Second, there is an odd line in the 14th amendment "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which may exclude children of two non citizens born in the United States. That doesn't mean that Congress can't allow it (and they have) and it doesn't mean that they can retroactively remove it (ex post facto law). But they could remove it for future people born in the United States.

First of all, there was a time I used to believe that Obama should be disqualified because of his extensive education abroad, but that would have also excluded J.Q. Adams who was attending a Catholic School (sorry, no Unitarian schools in France) in France when J. Adams was ambassador. And the rumor that he lied about his citizenship status in college in order to get either into the institute of higher learning or a scholarship doesn't seem to be a renunciation of citizenship ... Democrats LIE all the time, don't they? (I men any two bit student from Occidental can get into you know where.)

P.S. Birth tourism comes more from China than from Mexico.

[tzor]

Natural born in the territories of the USA. None of the Founding Fathers were born as American citizens, so the meaning is clear...

The "United States" were composed of the "Several States." Each State having been a former Colony. Most of the founding fathers were natural born citizens of the colony / state (a state is a colony that revolted) where they were born. The notion of "American citizen" is a lot like the notion that the "United States of America" is a singular noun and is a result of the aftermath of the Civil War.

There are a few exceptions but most were born in the colonies that became states.

[Metsfanmax]

Well since we're apparently only allowed to read the original text of the Constitution and not use common sense or judicial interpretation after the fact, then I guess no one is eligible because "natural born citizen" is never defined.

No, technically speaking Vattel's "law of nations" (originally in French) was the defacto definition for international legal terms and was actually cited in later congressional laws regarding citizenship. Given the fact, however, that there are only two types of citizens (natural born and naturalized), and since it was never specifically declared otherwise, any definition of citizenship that is applied at birth must apply to the constitution's use of the term.

Congress again confirmed jus sanguinis citizenship birthright in the Naturalization Act of 1795 (January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)) “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” While this leaves out the term natural-born, it does declare them to be citizens by-birth through their parents and therefore do not need the process of naturalization to become citizens.

...yes, that was the point. I was being sarcastic. There are a large set of laws that actually implement the various Constitutional provisions. Hence it is ridiculous for you to assert that because the Constitution only says the word "eligible," that it only has an application to eligibility.

[jgordon1111]

I have been watching this thread for awhile,waiting for someone to point out the obvious, there is precedent of a President, who was not born in either the USA or its territories at the time of the constitution being signed,Anyone know who it was?

[tzor]

There are a large set of laws that actually implement the various Constitutional provisions. Hence it is ridiculous for you to assert that because the Constitution only says the word "eligible," that it only has an application to eligibility.

I'm like a chess player at times. The distinction is important because it impacts the principle concept of standing. If an unqualified person runs no one really has "standing" to challenge in court. If he wins, on the other hand, all the losers have standing.

[tzor]

I have been watching this thread for awhile,waiting for someone to point out the obvious, there is precedent of a President, who was not born in either the USA or its territories at the time of the constitution being signed,Anyone know who it was?

IIRC that's why there is an exception clause in the Constitution. Jackson?

[jgordon1111]

I have been watching this thread for awhile,waiting for someone to point out the obvious, there is precedent of a President, who was not born in either the USA or its territories at the time of the constitution being signed,Anyone know who it was?

IIRC that's why there is an exception clause in the Constitution. Jackson?

Sorry no, it was grant, who was born in Ohio, but Ohio was not made official until 1953, when Dwight Eisenhower corrected an (oversite) and made it retroactive to 1 March 1803, and there you have it, the rest of the story goodnight

[Metsfanmax]

There are a large set of laws that actually implement the various Constitutional provisions. Hence it is ridiculous for you to assert that because the Constitution only says the word "eligible," that it only has an application to eligibility.

I'm like a chess player at times. The distinction is important because it impacts the principle concept of standing. If an unqualified person runs no one really has "standing" to challenge in court. If he wins, on the other hand, all the losers have standing.

On what basis do you make this statement? You're essentially begging the question here -- you're assuming that the crucial concept is actually holding the office, not merely being eligible for it and attempting to get elected, and from there asserting that standing exists only to challenge the former. But that is the crux of the matter, and cannot be assumed to prove your point.

(In the cases where people challenged President Obama's eligibility, some of them took place after he took office and standing was still not granted.)