Birthers officially dispute eligibility of four GOP candidates

[Zippyjuan]

By such non-reasoning, every Constitutional clause can be circumvented by lower law "clarifications" and precedents of Congress or the courts. We look to the meaning of the Constitution by studying the text itself, and the original intent as evidenced by the well-documented written or historical record from the Founding era.

The rest of the laws are interpreted in light of what the Constitution says, not the reverse. One clarifies the Constitution in the manner provided by the Constitution, namely the amendment process, not the "let's write a law or decision to get us around what the Constitution says" routine, that has given us unrelentingly unconstitutional massive government, and at least one sitting President who is not a natural born citizen as per the original intent of the Founders.

How are they re-writing or "getting around" what the Constitution says? If a law does overstep the Constitution, the Supreme Court is supposed to step in.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How are they re-writing or "getting around" what the Constitution says? If a law does overstep the Constitution, the Supreme Court is supposed to step in.

Only they don't, or they have stepped in precisely in order to make laws or decisions to get us around what the Constitution says.

 

[ChaosControl]

I think if youre both a citizen, you qualify. So Obama and all the candidates mentioned in this thread qualify. Arnold on the other hand wouldnt.

 

[timosman]

Disable java and voila.

You mean javascript. These two are not the same despite what many experts think.

 

[CPUd]

Arnold was definitely ineligible, and back when people thought it was a good idea for him to hold public office, his supporters lobbied for an amendment that would make him eligible. Some groups in Austria were also trying to get him to come back and run for president there, but he said LOL, no.

 

[Jan2017]

clearly, the founders included the word "Natural" to differentiate from a cesarean section. ice ofduh.

John Jay's letter to Washington in the summer of 1787 at Philly has been established as meaning "native-born".
We'll be going with the first Chief Justice of the US Supteme Court on this . . .

Nothing illegal maybe about Cruz running, but he'd NEVER get by Hillary having been born in Canada -
and the Chief Justice could not give him the Oath of Office at the Cruz "inauguration" - lol

 

[enhanced_deficit]

So some are taking a break from Obama front.

When GOP had unity, they used to defend their own.

Ben Carson Defends Birthers: Why Would You Go Through Such Lengths To Hide Past!?

 

[notsure]

I think if youre both a citizen, you qualify. So Obama and all the candidates mentioned in this thread qualify. Arnold on the other hand wouldnt.

Arnold is a citizen.

 

[notsure]

I believe maybe we could even see the intent of the Founders in action. With the 1790 Naturalization Act, The 1st US Congress, wrote that children who were born abroad to US citizen parents were to be considered as Natural Born Citizens. However, just 5 years later, the 3rd Congress, under the Presidency of George Washington, repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act with the Naturalization Act of 1795. When concerning the citizenship of children born abroad; the 1795 Naturalization Act read that children who were born abroad to US citizen parents were to be considered as Citizens only. No longer to be considered as natural born citizens, but naturalized citizens. Since 1795 these children born abroad were never to be considered as natural born citizens. The founders clearly knew the difference between citizens and natural born citizens; and this change in law reflects an opinion that natural born citizens can only be those who are born on US soil. If it were not for Congressional action, through their Constitutional powers to establish rules of naturalization, citizens such as Ted Cruz would have never been eligible for US citizenship at all.

 

[ChaosControl]

Arnold is a citizen.

Typo, I meant born.

 

[CBC4L]

If Santorum's father was a citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen. Vattel has it defined in Law of Nations. Only the father's citizenship matters.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are all naturalized at birth according to US code.

The hard part is that none of this really matters since no on has standing to discuss the case nor does any court have jurisdiction to decide the case as it was created by the US Constitution.

And technically, none of the people are running for President, just the Republican Nomination, which isn't truly running for President either.

 

[CBC4L]

If Santorum's father was a citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen. Vattel has it defined in Law of Nations. Only the father's citizenship matters.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are all naturalized at birth according to US code.

The hard part is that none of this really matters since no on has standing to discuss the case nor does any court have jurisdiction to decide the case as it was created by the US Constitution.

And technically, none of the people are running for President, just the Republican Nomination, which isn't truly running for President either.

 

[thoughtomator]

and moreover, the idea of the Rule of Law in this country has become such a fucking joke that we're really discussing a totally hypothetical item which will have no relevance to the question of who gets to be the oligarchs' puppet frontman for the next four years.

 

[notsure]

To repeat, the Constitution does use the term "Naturalization" but left it to Congress (as one of their powers) to decide what it means and how it differs from "natural born" which is also not defined though it says a president must have that trait. So we have to look at what laws have been written since then along with court rulings for clarification of just what "Natural born" really means.

The term "natural born citizen" should be so self-explanatory that it's definition had not needed any further elaboration. US citizens are either born or created. If you are made a citizen solely through statute, through action of Congress, then you are not a natural born citizen. Naturalization was defined before the creation of the US, and understood to mean the process by which aliens/foreigners acquire citizenship. If you have to look to Congress's acts of naturalization and immigration and nationality code to retain US citizenship, then you are a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizenship.

 

[notsure]

If Santorum's father was a citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen. Vattel has it defined in Law of Nations. Only the father's citizenship matters.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are all naturalized at birth according to US code.

The hard part is that none of this really matters since no on has standing to discuss the case nor does any court have jurisdiction to decide the case as it was created by the US Constitution.

And technically, none of the people are running for President, just the Republican Nomination, which isn't truly running for President either.

New Hampshire does require that the primary candidates meet eligibility requirements of POTUS. Not by proof, but with a simple affirmative signature.

 

[RonPaulMall]

The term "natural born citizen" should be so self-explanatory that it's definition had not needed any further elaboration. US citizens are either born or created. If you are made a citizen solely through statute, through action of Congress, then you are not a natural born citizen. Naturalization was defined before the creation of the US, and understood to mean the process by which aliens/foreigners acquire citizenship. If you have to look to Congress's acts of naturalization and immigration and nationality code to retain US citizenship, then you are a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizenship.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, which allegedly introduced the concept of "birthright citizenship", everyone had to look to the US code to determine their citizenship. "Naturalization" is a process one goes through to become a citizen. Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio were never "naturalized". They were citizens at birth. Whether they are "natural born" is another question. But they are NOT naturalized citizens. John McCain would be an example of a naturalized citizen. He became a citizen by act of Congress just prior to his first birthday.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The term "natural born citizen" should be so self-explanatory that it's definition had not needed any further elaboration. US citizens are either born or created. If you are made a citizen solely through statute, through action of Congress, then you are not a natural born citizen. Naturalization was defined before the creation of the US, and understood to mean the process by which aliens/foreigners acquire citizenship. If you have to look to Congress's acts of naturalization and immigration and nationality code to retain US citizenship, then you are a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizenship.

So a "natural born citizen" is obvious. If I was born in the US am I a US citizen? If I was born outside the United States am I "natural born citizen"? What if I am born in the US but my parents weren't? What if only one of my parents was a citizen? Which parent do I get the citizenship from? Do I qualify for citizenship of both of them- dual citizenship? If only one- which one? Mom? Dad? What if I had one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent and was born in the US? Since one was not a citizen, does that mean I am not a citizen? Or is just one good enough? What if I had one US citizen parent and one non-citizen parent and was born outside the US? Which determines my citizenship? It isn't clear and the Constitution doesn't say. That is why we need clarification from laws and courts. It is easy to determine in the case of both parents US citizens and you are born in the United States.

Naturalization is a process of becoming a citizen if you are not one by birth- that is true. The question though was who has to go through the naturalization process and who is a citizen by birth. That line has to be defined.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

This matter has been litigated - many times in fact - and the answer has always been the same. Birthers just refuse to accept it. Vattel's definition has been rejected and the English common law definition of "natural born subject" has been accepted. Here is the best summation: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf . The relevant part begins on page 10.

For those born in America, they're Natural Born Citizens period. Only Ted Cruz presents any wiggle-room, since the Act which granted him citizenship was by Constitutional definition an act of naturalization. The Ted Olson-Laurence Tribe analysis of John McCain's eligibility would certainly be invoked by Cruz, but the most important part of the McCain situation is the Resolution of Congress that he is eligible. This is because - contrary to an assertion in a post above - there are folks with standing to challenge presidential eligibility; 535 of them, to be precise, every member of Congress. They can challenge during the count of the Electoral vote (p.s. out of 1070 possible challenges of Barack Obama's eligibility, 0 were raised; 0-1070, so much for Vattel).