It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS, nor is Rubio: Confirmed

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by tinymind removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
:gomods

:



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tinymind
It is clearly stated that a person has to be born with in the country to hold this office.
-

Wrong again, where exactly is that stated?

As Cruz was born a US citizen, he is a natural born citizen - he was never naturalised.



You seem to believe there has always been only two ways to become a citizen of the U.S: naturalized and natural-born citizenship.

You are wrong.

There was actually a time, in U.S. history, when an alien woman automatically derived U.S. citizenship by marrying a U.S. citizen. In fact, there was a time when an alien woman automatically derived U.S. citizenship at the moment her alien husband naturalized.

The term ‘naturalized’ implies that a conscious choice has been made to become a U.S. citizen. Derivative citizenship does not imply a conscious choice with regard to citizenship — only a conscious choice to get married. Would a woman who derived citizenship by marrying a U.S. citizen have been eligible to become POTUS?

I don’t think so. I cannot imagine the drafters intended for anyone who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth or after — even without naturalizing — to be eligible to be POTUS. They clearly intended the POTUS to have been BORN A CITIZEN.

In my opinion, the term ‘natural-born citizen’ refers to ‘natural law,’ as opposed to positive law. In other words, ‘natural-born citizen’ refers to citizenship that is not acquired from any written law whatsoever. The founders often considered ’natural law’ and ‘natural rights.’ It’s not unreasonable to wonder if ’natural law’ is exactly what they were referring to when they wrote the term ’natural-born citizen.’

In the U.S., we have no written laws stating that a child born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents acquires citizenship at birth. On the contrary, such a person is born a citizen by virtue of natural law alone.

Until I hear SCOTUS opine on this specific legal argument, no state nor lower court decision is going to satisfy the questions that many people still have regarding the definition.

I don’t care how “silly” you think those questions are, and your ‘birfer’ insults don’t impress me either. In fact, I don’t find your arguments to be sound or thoughtful, at all — they’re just unnecessarily mean and not conducive to what could and should be a thoughtful debate. I honestly don't see how your method of discussing this topic contributes to the quality of debate on ATS, to be perfectly blunt.


edit on 19-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I totally agree with these statements.

I only wished I had same these and maybe some other thoughts myself.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
unless delaware, much like hawaii in the birthers eyes, isn't part of america, his mother is american.
the fact uneducated republicans still believe hawaii is non american and, using that fuzzy logic try, badly, again, to denounce someone's citizenship.
there is more evidence ted cruz is the zodiac killer, despite being a baby at the time.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
They clearly intended the POTUS to have been BORN A CITIZEN.


Just like Obama was, just like Cruz was.... as neither were naturalised to become a US citizen, they both became one at birth. A fact some people want to deny!


In other words, ‘natural-born citizen’ refers to citizenship that is not acquired from any written law whatsoever.


Just like Obama and Cruz...


In the U.S., we have no written laws stating that a child born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents acquires citizenship at birth. On the contrary, such a person is born a citizen by virtue of natural law alone.


There is also no written law stating a child born in the USA needs any citizen parents at all to be a natural born citizen... nor is there any written law stating a child born in another country to a US citizen needs to be naturalised to become a US citizen...


In fact, I don’t find your arguments to be sound or thoughtful, at all — they’re just unnecessarily mean and not conducive to what could and should be a thoughtful debate.


You do not agree that Obama or Cruz are natural born US citizens as you simply do not want them to be President, so you try and make up nonsense about them! You make up nonsense like Obama's BC was forged etc!
edit on 19-4-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
unless delaware, much like hawaii in the birthers eyes, isn't part of america, his mother is american.
the fact uneducated republicans still believe hawaii is non american and, using that fuzzy logic try, badly, again, to denounce someone's citizenship.
there is more evidence ted cruz is the zodiac killer, despite being a baby at the time.


It's not the logic that is fuzzy -- it's the fact that the federal government and the Kingdom of Hawaii government do not agree.

Hawaii was annexed in violation of an international treaty and the Kingdom was overthrown in a bloodless coup. To this day, the Kingdom of Hawaii does not recognize the authority of the U.S. federal government.

It is arguable that the U.S. has denied the people of Hawaii their right to be citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii and forced U.S. citizenship on people who don't want it.

The U.S. has admitted this wrong and has apologized, but have done nothing to restore the Kingdom. There are many Hawaiians that have legally asserted their rights to sovereignty -- and continue to do so.

BTW, I am not a republican. I consider myself to be old-school progressive and I don't believe that the U.S. is so exceptional that they can just go around violating the rights of people in other nations in defiance of international treaties.

So, while I think the federal government says Hawaii is a state and is considered U.S. soil, the Kingdom of Hawaii does not agree.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
Just like Obama was, just like Cruz was.... as neither were naturalised to become a US citizen, they both became one at birth. A fact some people want to deny!


Exactly. They acquired citizenship at birth because of written laws but were not born citizens due to natural law alone.

Thanks for agreeing with me.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Exactly. They acquired citizenship at birth because of written laws


Still wrong, they were both born US citizens, as neither had to be naturalised to become US citizens. Hence both are natural born US citizens!


Thanks for agreeing with me.


You are very confused.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
Still wrong, they were both born US citizens, as neither had to be naturalised to become US citizens. Hence both are natural born US citizens!


Just because you believe the argument boils down to 'naturalized' vs. 'natural-born' doesn't make it so.

I say the argument boils down to 'natural law' vs. 'positive law.'

We don't agree on the nature of the debate. You are entitled to believe what you want, I am just as entitled to believe what I want.

I believe your argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account derivative citizenship. In the U.S. there are THREE TYPES OF CITIZENSHIP, not two: derivative, naturalized, and natural-born.

And you agreed with me that both Obama and Cruz have derivative citizenship -- they were not BORN citizens by virtue of 'natural law,' they acquired it AT BIRTH.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
And you agreed with me that both Obama and Cruz have derivative citizenship -- they were not BORN citizens by virtue of 'natural law,' they acquired it AT BIRTH.


Still wrong, they are both natural born US citizens -

You somehow think someone can be a citizen before they are born!



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

That's actually not what I am claiming. I am claiming some people can be born a citizen and others are born and depending on the circircumstances, their parent(s) citizenship and/or place of birth are considered in light of citizenship laws and it is determined AT BIRTH that they have derived U.S. Citizenship.

There are no written laws to consult when a child is born to two US citizen parents on US soil. Such a child is born a citizen by virtue of natural law alone.



edit on 19-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
There are no written laws to consult when a child is born to two US citizen parents on US soil. Such a child is born a citizen by virtue of natural law alone.


There are no written laws to state someone born on US soil to 1 citizen parent.... or none... Such children are born citizens by virtue of natural law alone.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
There are no written laws to consult when a child is born to two US citizen parents on US soil. Such a child is born a citizen by virtue of natural law alone.


There are no written laws to state someone born on US soil to 1 citizen parent.... or none... Such children are born citizens by virtue of natural law alone.


You are incorrect. In fact, pursuant to 8 U.S. Code § 1401, you can be born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent and still not acquire U.S. citizenship AT BIRTH if you have a parent that is a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe AND the granting of that citizenship will impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth


The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(b)a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided, that the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


This is a circumstance that would be considered AT BIRTH and BEFORE citizenship is acquired...by consulting a 'positive law,' 8 U.S. Code § 1401.

Such a person born on U.S. soil and to ONE U.S. Citizen parent is not only NOT a natural-born citizen, but they are not even a U.S. citizen.



edit on 19-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

YES!
You are correct.
BUT... only those who are "born" on American soil are to be considered as "natural born Citizens", and this is the requirement set down in the Constitution.
Being born of citizens BUT on foreign soil coveys citizenship to a child, but they are not born as a native to the U S. They are no
less a citizen just not a "natural born Citizen".
The only real difference is in terminology and that pesky Constitutional requirement.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thank you for this bit of information.
Just shows me that I had not found all the information which was available on the subject.
Isn't it a wonder what a little research can turn up?



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Exactly. They acquired citizenship at birth because of written laws


Still wrong, they were both born US citizens, as neither had to be naturalised to become US citizens. Hence both are natural born US citizens!


Thanks for agreeing with me.


You are very confused.



Now that I know you are from New Zealand and simply interested in "American politics:" Your Introduction Post

And now that I see that, right away, the Obama birth certificate controversy was a topic of particular interest to you: Link to second comment

I feel more certain than ever that the debate about the term 'natural born citizen' needs more attention from SCOTUS.

The term exists for the purposes of ensuring the most powerful person in the U.S. government has the appropriate loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. AND that their loyalty is not divided or lies elsewhere. It is meant as a national security measure and as a measure to thwart foreign influence.

It's little wonder you have less of a litmus test when it comes to MY nation's security interests than me, as someone living here.

Typically, I find everyone has some legitimate interest in the politics of every nation. But let's just put your 'birfer'-laden argument into perspective -- your influence as a New Zealander is exactly the kind of influence the drafters intended to exclude with the eligibility requirement, in the first place.

This issue isn't about New Zealand's national security. It's about my national security -- and every other U.S. citizen's security.

Of course, my litmus test and interpretation of the term is going to be more stringent and conservative than yours. Of course, I am going to want to discuss the issue until I feel like the debate is settled by SCOTUS.

Honestly, I really don't think you have a relevant leg to stand on with regard to this debate -- let alone a leg to try to stifle it by declaring it "nonsense" and those who disagree with you 'birfers.'


ETA: And, BTW, your use of the term 'birfers,' to refer to Americans who disagree with your opinion on this issue, reads and feels extremely XENOPHOBIC now that I know you are from New Zealand.
edit on 19-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Knowing the law is good and exceedingly important. It would help those who don't understand how to interpret the law to understand the intent of a law.

It is unwise for a country to have a foreign ruler, yes that's obvious. But it's also unwise for a country to have a ruler with foreign bias.

This seems obvious, but I see some not getting something so simple.

To complicate the matter of citizenship is to make the country more vulnerable to foreigners and the unloyal alike.

Some say, "Let's be global, it's the 21st century!" First, you neglect realizing there are power hungry people. The more people you have under a banner, the more the power hungry want to replace that banner with their own. Secondly, whoever convinced you that people are more evolved in the 21st century as opposed to the 18th century? People are not getting smarter, and never have been. Society is the moon and civilization is the earth and the Sun is the law. Society goes through phases wherein it reflects the light of the natural law to a degree and less to darkness, and so on. Civilization is the observer and the one whom these phases affect.

To let you know where we're at, we're in a Lunar Eclipse.

The law would shine, but we're in the way. Society is therefore dark and red.

The Constitution is more simple to read. Metaphors aren't used, yet it's easy to comprehend what I meant.




edit on 4/19/2016 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
IMO
It's a dumb, outdated requirement that has far outlived its usefulness. And it will continue to provide a distraction until the SCOTUS issues a ruling (which they can't do until someone files a petition that gets accepted) or we go through the PITA of amending the Constitution to eliminate it.

Of course the problem with that, is anyone bringing an amendment to eliminate the Natural Born requirement is going to get pilloried.

As that great, late sage from the comics told us years ago, "We have met the enemy and he is us." So appropriate in so many instances.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Even at the risk of whatever repurcusions may be involved, I feel compelled to put forth some information which I have just found.



www.webcommentary.com...
a reply to: yeahright

The auther explains much more than I had known.



"Part 2: 1971 SUPREME COURT RULING – Children BORN ABROAD ARE NATURALIZED CITIZENS

Per the SUPREME COURT in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), a case where the birth circumstances (child was born to American mother and Foreign Father in Italy) were nearly identical to those of Cruz, their ruling was as follows:

'…Afroyim’s broad interpretation of the scope of the Citizenship Clause finds ample support in the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. ANYONE ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP SOLELY UNDER THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN."

"'A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.'"1"Cruz keeps citing in his responses the Act of 1790 (long-standing U.S. Law) which did state that children born abroad to U.S. citizens (plural not singular) were considered 'natural-born citizens'. HOWEVER what Cruz is NOT telling American citizens is that the Act of 1790 was REPEALED as in voided, voted out, nullified, NO LONGER LAW and REPLACED with the Act of 1795 which change only grants the 'status of citizen' NOT natural born to children born abroad to U.S.citizens (again plural). Why plural, because at the time these acts were written a woman with U.S. citizenship who had a child born abroad could not confer her U.S. citizenship onto her child - it could ONLY descend through the father. That right did not come into effect until the 1900s and only convey's 'citizen' status 'granted' through naturalization process

[Note: It went into effect in 1934.]

"Additionally, 'children born abroad' is regulated under the U.S. Immigration and 'Naturalization' Act which does NOT confer natural-born status on those children. U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now, upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child's citizenship status. If it is determined that the child can hold U.S. Citizenship a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. Passport would/will be issued to the parents who MUST ALSO RENOUNCE THE child's Canadian (or other country's) citizenship AT THE SAME TIME. Cruz has NOT produced his Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a very important document as it would clearly state that he held U.S. Citizenship, however he would only be a 'naturalized' citizen as it is again, governed under the Immigration & Naturalization Act, which 'grant's citizenship - you are NOT automatically 'born' with it, nor is it descended upon the child from the parent.


I hope this will help those who are still "kind-a on the fence" on this issue.
edit on 20-4-2016 by tinymind because: some information lost




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join