[Saddam Hussein]

Cruz is under no more serious scrutiny about his eligibility to be president than Obama, and the cries of a political activist on the Internet (along with the clickbait websites repeating his claims) are not going to change that.  Also, Kim Guadagno is the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, not the Secretary of State.

[Rushy]

Cruz is under no more serious scrutiny about his eligibility to be president than Obama, and the cries of a political activist on the Internet (along with the clickbait websites repeating his claims) are not going to change that.  Also, Kim Guadagno is the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, not the Secretary of State.

Except the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is actually established and that there is precedent for naturalization not counting as 'natural born'. This is why it was a big deal whether Obama was born in Kenya or not, because if he was, then he wasn't eligible to be president.

[Saddam Hussein]

He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.

[sandokhan]

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/07/five-things-must-know-new-york-gop-primary/

[Rushy]

He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.

He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael" There's power in a name, Saddam, and using the right name at the right time and place can ruin a man; especially a man running on a platform of voters that aren't fond of foreigners.

nomen est omen

Also, he is a citizen because his mother was a citizen, but he was born in a foreign nation on foreign soil (e.g., not a military base). That doesn't meet the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. Natural born is defined in English common law as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and while obviously you could say "lol Canada is a dominion of the crown of England!" the concept when applied to the US means you must be born within the dominion of the US. Unless he was born in an Embassy or on a military base, that requirement isn't meet overseas.

[Pete Svarrior]

Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?

Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.

That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".

[Roundy]

There's power in a name, Saddam,

This is true, just ask Donald Drumpf!

[Pete Svarrior]

This is true, just ask Donald Drumpf!

Yeah, that rich German dude clearly planned for his descendants to rise to power... during the Thirty Years' War...

[Roundy]

Make Donald Drumpf again!

[Blanko]

It's the current year!

[Saddam Hussein]

He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael"

As I told you on IRC, this isn't true.  He's gone by Ted at least since 1992, as shown by a thesis he wrote back then:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/480888/cruz-thesis.pdf

Also, he is a citizen because his mother was a citizen, but he was born in a foreign nation on foreign soil (e.g., not a military base). That doesn't meet the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. Natural born is defined in English common law as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and while obviously you could say "lol Canada is a dominion of the crown of England!" the concept when applied to the US means you must be born within the dominion of the US. Unless he was born in an Embassy or on a military base, that requirement isn't meet overseas.

"Natural born" isn't defined in the Constitution, while federal law extends birthright citizenship to those born either on American soil or to an American parent.  I'll concede that it is possible that a court might rule that you
have to be born on American soil to be eligible to run for president, but the chances of that happening - especially in the next few months - are very remote.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?

That was pretty immature too, but at the very least, it was intended to just give him a goofy name that nobody could take seriously, rather than a xenophobic hint that he wasn't one of us.

That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".

Maybe.  I just remember a few people here always calling him that, and seemingly finding excuses to repeat the name.  Moreso than calling Francis "Bergoglio," certainly, but then again, he hasn't come under nearly as much criticism as Benedict.

[Rushy]

As I told you on IRC, this isn't true.  He's gone by Ted at least since 1992, as shown by a thesis he wrote back then:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/480888/cruz-thesis.pdf

Okay, I still hate Rafael.

"Natural born" isn't defined in the Constitution, while federal law extends birthright citizenship to those born either on American soil or to an American parent.  I'll concede that it is possible that a court might rule that you
have to be born on American soil to be eligible to run for president, but the chances of that happening - especially in the next few months - are very remote.

"Natural born" is defined by both English common law (which is historically accepted to be the basis on the Constitution) and Supreme Court precedence (United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898). There are also many other examples:

“…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…”

Here’s how Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):

"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 a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”

Here’s how Justice William O. Douglas said it in Schneider V. Rusk (1964):

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”

In U.S. v. Fisher , 48 F S 7, the court said:

"A naturalized citizen, broadly speaking, enjoys all the rights of the native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction, Const. rt. 2, par 1, cl 4 and this constitutional exception is limited alone to the occupancy of the office of President of the United States.”

Like I said, Saddam, it isn't in question whether or not a foreign-born person who was not on a military base or embassy can be president (the answer being that they can't). The only question here is why this isn't a bigger deal and why the only person willing to challenge Cruz on it is a law professor in New Jersey.

[Lord Dave]

But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

[Rushy]

But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

The Common Law precedence doesn't matter because I later found actual Supreme Court rulings on the definition of "Natural Born" in the Constitution. The Common Law basis only comes into play if there is no Court precedence, which isn't the case anymore.

I'm sure the same people looking for Obama's birth certificate are now sweeping Cruz's foreign birth under the rug.

[Lord Dave]

But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

The Common Law precedence doesn't matter because I later found actual Supreme Court rulings on the definition of "Natural Born" in the Constitution. The Common Law basis only comes into play if there is no Court precedence, which isn't the case anymore.

But there hasn't been a ruling, has there?  I see the opinions being stated and you're right, there is court precedence, but until it's actually ruled one way or another, it's up in the air, isn't it? 



Also, because I think it's interesting:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275789-trump-primary-processes-on-both-sides-corrupt

Trump is supporting Bernie because Bernie keeps winning but calls the entire process of picking a representative corrupted saying the the Republicans are worse than the Democrats.

"Because the system is corrupt. And it's worse on the Republican side."

It's nice to see a Republican state that their party is more corrupt than the Democrats. 

[Rushy]

Yeah after the Colorado gaffe I agree with him. If you can win an entire state only to have every delegate turn around and support Cruz, then obviously something is wrong with the voting system.

[Saddam Hussein]

@Rushy: That's not how courts work.  When a court makes a ruling, the legal precedent that is set is no more than the subject of the case itself.  The opinions that judges write are meant to explain their reasoning and how they arrived at their decision.  They're not necessarily irrelevant to future cases, but you can't just take an individual line from the opinion on a separate (albeit related) subject and treat it as though it constitutes a ruling in and of itself.  If that were the case, there would be a hundred different potential rulings contained in every new ruling the courts delivered, and many of them would contradict each other.  It's forbidden by the Constitution for courts to issue rulings on hypothetical or potential future cases, in any event.  There needs to be a case on the specific subject of whether or not someone born outside of the United States is eligible to run for president before we can say that there's precedent on the subject, and so far the people who are trying to press this issue (including Victor Williams) are stuck on the stage of trying to prove that they have legal standing to challenge Cruz's eligibility.

And English common law, while certainly a major influence on the writing of the Constitution, is not an authority in this country.  A judge might take it into consideration if they were ruling on the subject, but it means very little by itself.

[Pete Svarrior]

That was pretty immature too, but at the very least, it was intended to just give him a goofy name that nobody could take seriously, rather than a xenophobic hint that he wasn't one of us.

There is nothing silly about "Drumpf" - it's a perfectly typical German surname. The only thing that's notable about it is exactly its origin. Your argument really boils down to "it's not xenophobic when I find it funny".

[Saddam Hussein]

To the fickle American electorate, "Drumpf" does sound silly, just as "Trump" sounds impressive.  Even if you disagree, that was Oliver's argument.  As he described it:

Drumpf is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy. Drumpf. It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart.

There was nothing about making fun of it for sounding German.

[garygreen]

fwiw, i had no clue it was a german name until this thread.  i thought it was just supposed to sound like a funny name.

americans arent well versed in 19th century german surnames