Ted Cruz is Ineligible for the Presidency

[Tyrannical]

They're questioning Marco Rubio on it too, neither of his parents were even US citizens when he was born. He's just a Cuban anchor baby. Trump's Scottish mother was naturalized a few years before he was born.

[pErvinalia]

Well that explains an article I saw the byline to this morning with Cruz claiming that Trump couldn't be Prez either. Fuck, none of them are eligible. They'll have to go with Bush III.

[Seth]

Yeah it's going to be a clusterfuck. Interesting, but still a clusterfuck.

As long as Hillary ends up behind bars (I REALLY want a copy of her mugshot) I'll put up with the rest.

[Seth]

What a mess. How crazy that a person (not talking Cruz or Bammy here) born in the US and lived their whole life there might not be able to be Prez because one of their parents is was not born in the US. Who cares what the framers thought.

We do. You don't get a fucking vote.


Claiming that someone born and raised in the US is a lesser citizen than the same situation but with both parents born in the US is ridiculous and prejudiced.[/quote]

It's meant to be "prejudiced" because we don't want people whose parents have foreign leanings and allegiances as President. They can hold ANY other federal office, including Congressman or Supreme Court Justice, just not the presidency. Too much risk of compromised loyalties, which is a perfectly rational fear given the Marxist Progressive cocksucker who occupies the oval office right now. If ever there were an argument for preventing that sort of thing, Obama is it, in spades.

[Seth]

What a mess. How crazy that a person (not talking Cruz or Bammy here) born in the US and lived their whole life there might not be able to be Prez because one of their parents is was not born in the US. Who cares what the framers thought. Claiming that someone born and raised in the US is a lesser citizen than the same situation but with both parents born in the US is ridiculous and prejudiced.

It's part and parcel of a quasi-religious worship of a sacred constitution and sainted "founding fathers".

Definitely a nation that needs to grow up, and leave romantic fantasies of muskets, militias and ancestor veneration behind.

Why? So we can be like you sheeple fucknuts down under? I don't think so.

[pErvinalia]

Well we are a far more peaceful and equal society than you lot are. We usually top or finish in the top three for most liveable country in the world. Also up the top of happiness indexes. Gini coefficients. The US is a fuckup of a nation for the last 30 odd years. And it's only going to get worse while you keep embracing neoliberalism as strongly as you are.

[Seth]

Well we are a far more enslaved peaceful and helpless equal society than you lot are.

We usually top or finish in the top three for most liveable country in the world.

According to Marxists.

Also up the top of happiness indexes. Gini coefficients.

Again according to Marxists.

The US is a fuckup of a nation for the last 30 odd years. And it's only going to get worse while you keep embracing neoliberalism as strongly as you are.

Oh well. I've got my guns, so I don't give a fuck what you think because you are powerless to affect my life at all, but you don't have guns, so I can fuck your life up any time it pleases me to do so. And so can any fisherman from Asia with an AK who wants your GPS and radio.

[pErvinalia]

[Tyrannical]

Well that explains an article I saw the byline to this morning with Cruz claiming that Trump couldn't be Prez either. Fuck, none of them are eligible. They'll have to go with Bush III.

That was just Cruz embarrassing himself when he said that, and to think he used to Clerk for the Supreme Court. We've had several Presidents in the past where one of the spouses was a naturalized citizen, and that could never have been the original intent of the article since so much of the population in the early 1800's had parents born in the UK.

[pErvinalia]

Good point. Tell that to Seth.

[L'Emmerdeur]

They're questioning Marco Rubio on it too, neither of his parents were even US citizens when he was born. He's just a Cuban anchor baby. Trump's Scottish mother was naturalized a few years before he was born.

As I understand it, the issue in regards to Rubio was ruled on unequivocally by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and reaffirmed by that court in Perkins v. Elg.

[Hermit]

They're questioning Marco Rubio on it too, neither of his parents were even US citizens when he was born. He's just a Cuban anchor baby. Trump's Scottish mother was naturalized a few years before he was born.

As I understand it, the issue in regards to Rubio was ruled on unequivocally by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and reaffirmed by that court in Perkins v. Elg.

I am not going to read the transcripts you linked to in order to find the salient point, and I doubt any other forum member will either. The first is 30,000 words long and the second goes on for 9,000. Would you please be so kind as to quote the relevant bits of those cases, or give us a précis?

[NineBerry]

They basically say that anyone born in the US and grown up there is a citizen independent of the status of the parents. This is an answer to the claim of "anchor babies". It is not actually related to the presidency.

[Hermit]

Ah. Thanks.

[L'Emmerdeur]

They're questioning Marco Rubio on it too, neither of his parents were even US citizens when he was born. He's just a Cuban anchor baby. Trump's Scottish mother was naturalized a few years before he was born.

As I understand it, the issue in regards to Rubio was ruled on unequivocally by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and reaffirmed by that court in Perkins v. Elg.

I am not going to read the transcripts you linked to in order to find the salient point, and I doubt any other forum member will either. The first is 30,000 words long and the second goes on for 9,000. Would you please be so kind as to quote the relevant bits of those cases, or give us a précis?

Those are not "transcripts" so much as published court decisions. While laklak is correct in saying that the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the issue of "natural born citizens" as it applies to the constitutional requirement in Article II Section 1, that court has addressed the question of citizenship by birth in various rulings, including the two I cited. Both of the rulings I cited state that a person born in the United States is by birth a citizen of the United States (except if they are born to parents who are specifically in the employ of another country, as for example in the case of an ambassador from another country). In doing so, the Supreme Court has referred to and reaffirmed an old decision in Lynch v. Clarke, which includes the following:

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person would be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they would have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object. And what is true of the delegates in the convention, is equally applicable to the designs of the states, and of the people of the states, in ratifying and adopting the results of their labors.

[Emphasis in the original.]

The common law referred to here is British common law, with its concept of birthright citizenship, or jus soli.