Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all ineligible to be President - Not Natural Born Citizens of the US

[Teufelhund]

Not true

The UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT disagrees with you. But please, tell us how this policy, on the US Department of State's website is incorrect.

http://travel.state.gov/content/trav...rn-abroad.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

[Bailey Guns]

Let's see, who to believe? A poster on an internet gun forum or accomplished attorneys writing for the Harvard Law Review? Call me crazy but I'm gonna go with Harvard Law Review...

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

[davsel]

The UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT disagrees with you. But please, tell us how this policy, on the US Department of State's website is incorrect.

http://travel.state.gov/content/trav...rn-abroad.html

Ok, one more time:

No one is arguing whether or not Cruz was a US citizen at the time of his birth - He was and is.

The argument stems from the fact that there are two different "classes" of citizenship: "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." The only difference between members of these two classes is that one can run for POTUS and the other class cannot.

"Natural Born" = born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States to a citizen parent.
"Naturalized" = A statute or act of Congress confers citizenship to someone other than the "Natural Born" citizen.

Cruz was not born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States, therefore his citizenship, from the time of his birth, falls under the class of "Naturalized" because it required a legal statute to grant citizenship to children of US citizens born outside the US - as you posted above.

What you have posted above falls under "Naturalized," and therefore is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

The subject has been brought up by the courts before:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,

(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)

such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.

Being a citizen at birth is not the same thing as being a "Natural Born" citizen.

[davsel]

Let's see, who to believe? A poster on an internet gun forum or accomplished attorneys writing for the Harvard Law Review? Call me crazy but I'm gonna go with Harvard Law Review...

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

I would not expect anyone to believe little ole me. That is why I have posted links and quotes from several reliable sources, to include court cases, throughout this discussion.

And let's not forget, Obama was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as editor for a year, and Elena Kagan served as supervising editor at one time.

[roberth]

I would not expect anyone to believe little ole me. That is why I have posted links and quotes from several reliable sources, to include court cases, throughout this discussion.

And let's not forget, Obama was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as editor for a year, and Elena Kagan served as supervising editor at one time.

I know that, I like links and stuff, I just don't see how they have any standing. I'd think these people would do a little research before filing suit, but that's just me.

I knew jugears was president but I didn't know that about the other 2.

[Bailey Guns]

I would not expect anyone to believe little ole me. That is why I have posted links and quotes from several reliable sources, to include court cases, throughout this discussion.

And let's not forget, Obama was elected the President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as editor for a year, and Elena Kagan served as supervising editor at one time.

Wasn't a slam directed towards you personally. Apologies if that's the way it came across. And I did read the links and such.

But the authors of that piece aren't Obama, Ginsburg or Kagan. Paul Klement is a former Solicitor General and is now a Georgetown University law professor. Katyal is also a GU professor of constitutional law and former acting Solicitor General. They aren't you're average late night TV lawyers.

In my opinion, the legal weight favoring Cruz far outweighs that against him.

[davsel]

I would expect the current SCOTUS to rule in favor of Cruz's / Rubio's eligibility to avoid opening a can of worms concerning Obama's eligibility.
I can't imagine what the implications would be if Obama was one day determined to have been ineligible.

I expect the subject will not make it into a court room because neither party wants it to.

[davsel]

Wasn't a slam directed towards you personally. Apologies if that's the way it came across. And I did read the links and such.

But the authors of that piece aren't Obama, Ginsburg or Kagan. Paul Klement is a former Solicitor General and is now a Georgetown University law professor. Katyal is also a GU professor of constitutional law and former acting Solicitor General. They aren't you're average late night TV lawyers.

In my opinion, the legal weight favoring Cruz far outweighs that against him.

It will at least be interesting to watch it all come to a head.

[68Charger]

I would expect the current SCOTUS to rule in favor of Cruz's / Rubio's eligibility to avoid opening a can of worms concerning Obama's eligibility.
I can't imagine what the implications would be if Obama was one day determined to have been ineligible.

I expect the subject will not make it into a court room because neither party wants it to.

I was coming here to post this ^^^^^^
what we think the law means is worth exactly Jack and shit... and Jack left town years ago.
The precedent was set by keeping the POSOTUS in the office... so that set the standard.... I could conceal my records, and my opponents could call a bunch of questions- but it doesn't mean anything... even if I am or am not a citizen. You're better off not releasing any records... (in the eyes of the Left, anyway- some of us still care)

[Teufelhund]

Ok, one more time:

No one is arguing whether or not Cruz was a US citizen at the time of his birth - He was and is.

The argument stems from the fact that there are two different "classes" of citizenship: "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." The only difference between members of these two classes is that one can run for POTUS and the other class cannot.

"Natural Born" = born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States to a citizen parent.
"Naturalized" = A statute or act of Congress confers citizenship to someone other than the "Natural Born" citizen.

Cruz was not born within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States, therefore his citizenship, from the time of his birth, falls under the class of "Naturalized" because it required a legal statute to grant citizenship to children of US citizens born outside the US - as you posted above.

What you have posted above falls under "Naturalized," and therefore is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

The subject has been brought up by the courts before:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649


Being a citizen at birth is not the same thing as being a "Natural Born" citizen.

I guess I didn't understand to what you were referring when you said "not true."

So what you're saying is that if a US Ambassador, posted in a foreign country, has a baby at the local hospital, that baby can never be president because he/she wasn't delivered on US soil. Does that sound right to you?

I still think you're wrong on this. A Naturalized citizen is one who immigrated here and has to submit to a formal process to become a citizen. A Natural born citizen is one who autonomously becomes a citizen through no action of their own (typically because one of their parents is a citizen). Actual constitutional scholars agree with this. I guess we will see if/when this lawsuit goes anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk