Ted Cruz Drops Bombshell: Admits He's Not Constitutionally Eligible To Be President

It doesn't. It specifically dealt with a child born on US soil.

So you don't know what naturalized means.

All citizenship is given by law.

Of course they could. They would just need to repeal the 14th amendment.

And meeting the requirements makes them one.

 

WKA has relevance to children born abroad. Rogers vs Bellei

I've already quoted and shown just what naturalization/naturalized means on numerous occasions in this thread.

Only citizenship conferred is given by law. Natural-born is ancient rule. WKA

Repealing the 14th wouldn't nullify nor deny natural-born citizenship, the 14th is merely declaratory of existing rule.

Meeting the requirements merely makes them citizens on par with naturalized aliens.

 

It doesn't.

It doesn't mean citizen at birth.

No. All citizenship is given by law.

Which is still by law.

Lol, yes it would.

It doesn't. As there are only 2 types of citizen. Natural born and naturalized.

 

It does as has been shown thorughout this thread and by Rogers vs Bellei

Ok, where did I claim it did? Naturalization means "conferred" in this context, as in conferred by Congress through statute. Naturalization is jus sanguinas and immigration, jus sanguinas simply lessens the formal requirements to parents mandate of time spent in the US prior to birth to qualify and then the child's time spent in the US prior to a certain age in order to receive citizenship, if either the child or the parent fails the requirements then the child does not receive conferred citizenship.The term "naturalization" is generic

Again from Rogers vs Bellei and WKA

Jus soli is an ancient rule, jus sanguinas is a recent law. Do you understand the difference between rule and law?

No it's not.

No it wouldn't. the 14th is declaratory of existing rule/law. WKA

There are only 2 SOURCES for citizenship. Again WKA.

Surely your not so inept that you are going to exclaim that SCOTUS doesn't know what they are talking about when they say there are only 2 SOURCE of citizenship.

Here Rogers vs Bellei points that out explicitly, referring both to WKA and Minor Vs Happersett

You can attempt to deny the precedent set by WKA and prior cases all you want, it doesn't change reality or fact, it only shows your inability to understand case law and SCOTUS opinion.

 

Repeating the same falsehoods doesn't suddenly make them true. WKA was about birth on US soil. Birth abroad was not an issue before the court. It has no relevance.

 

So you deny actual SCOTUS opinion, and various SCOTUS rulings that link back to WKA and various cases prior as being false, falsehoods, and not having relevance, shows such stupidity that one can not take you seriously.

 

I'm sorry you have such a hard time understanding basic legal principles. The issue before the court in WKA was birth on US soil. Born abroad was not an issue before the court, which is why they didn't make a ruling regarding it. It is irrelevant to children born abroad.

This is remedial stuff here.

 

LMFAO Basic legal principles? Do you not understand what precedent is, how about holding, maybe dicta? There was no issue before the court in WKA, there was a question presented to the court

Gray goes through the citizenship laws of the US from the time of the settlements up to and through the 14th Amendment. He discusses children born to citizens within the US and outside the US and refers to prior cases about both, thus setting precedent.

Your lack of legalise is your downfall, your playing from a position of handicap, you have no background in law whatsoever as evidenced throughout this thread, your attempts to appear more than what you actually are, while amusing, show you to be nothing more than a fraudster and heavily misinformed.

 

Yes. The court can only rule on the issue before it. The issue on WKA was a child born on US soil. Children born abroad was not a consideration. It has no relevance to children born abroad.

You need to learn the difference between the ruling and dicta.

You're like a birther that constantly cites minor v happersett as an argument obama isn't a NBC.

It's hilarious.

 

The court affirmed on the question presented, in the process the court lays out the arguments from both the Plaintiff and the Defendant and then responds to them based on prior precedent and holding. During this process the court made light of the laws as they pertain to citizens, subjects, native-born, natural-born, and naturalization and determined there are only 2 sources for citizenship, birth through jus soli and naturalization through jus sanguinas and immigration. For you to exclaim that WKA has no relevance shows utter stupidity.

I know both very well, but thanks for your concern.

Obama was born in Hawaii, to a US Citizen Mother and a non-immigrant visa holder Father, of course he is a "natural-born" citizen as he was born within the US.

Gray in WKA refers to Minor v Happersett, even Rogers v Bellei refers to both.

Watching you make the fool of yourself sure is.

 

The question presented to the court in WKA was

It does not say The issue before the court in WKA was birth on US soil. The simple issue was, was he a 14th Amendment citizen even if his parents were not allowed to naturalize. Gray proceeded to go through the citizenship laws from the founding through 1868, he determined there were 2 sources of citizenship, birth within the US (jus soli) and naturalization (jus sanguinas and immigration) within the US. He explained the INA from 1790 through 1855 and how a child born outside the US to citizen parents was a naturalized citizen due to conference and states they are the same as a citizen born within the US with one exception, they do not qualify for Article 2 section 1. WKA IS the SCOTUS opinion that is recognized as to whom is a citizen of the US. Here Gray invokes Dred Scott

So "natural-born" is acquired if born within the US, and naturalized is acquired if born outside of the US.

This is remedial stuff here.

 

Minor V Happersett wasn't about citizenship but about voting rights. You really should READ the case instead of talking like a parrot.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains:

"Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."

 

Maybe you should read WKA where in Justice Gray refers to Minor v Happersett

If you were as educated as you believe yourself to be, you would have known this.

But wait, there's more Minor v Happerrsett from WKA

and here

You should take this a learning experience to further your K-12 education.

If I'm a parrot, are you a dodo bird?

 

The Nineteenth Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex.[1] Minor v. Happersett continued to be cited in support of restrictive election laws of other types until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court started interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to guarantee voting rights

Try reading the case............

 

OK, so what, all the amendment did was grant women the right to vote, it has no bearing on the precedent that was set in Minor, especia;;y when cited by other SCOTUS opinions such as WKA and Rogers v Bellei.

If we were to use your logic (the 19th Amendment would have nullified all of Minor) then persons born to citizen parents within the US wouldn't be born citizens.

Now lets use a very recent case, Rogers v Bellei (1971)

Wow, look at that, Minor still being used as precedent, who woulda thunk it?

 

Birthers always toss out Minor V Happersatt and always end up looking like tools

Virginia Minor, a leader of the women's suffrage movement in Missouri, attempted to register to vote on October 15, 1872, in St. Louis County, Missouri, but was refused on the grounds that she was a woman.[

 

Nope.. not that kind of paralegal.. I did contract law and medical malpractice.. and I had a million dollar budget.

One thing I learned was that I could never memorize the body of law, so I learned to do the research and read carefully.

 

So you are completely inept when it comes to understanding SCOTUS opinion, got it. All you did was read contracts and look for wording. My mother was a paralegal in divorce law, I do expert witness work and write reports that are used in court cases, my brother-in-law is an immigration attorney, my sister is a lawyer specializing in commercial litigation, you have no idea what you are talking about by a) calling me a birther, b) what precedents have been set by previous SCOTUS opinion, etc. Minor is still used to this day, just because the 19th Amendment allowed women to vote, it didn't overturn the precedents as set by Minor, all it (the 19th Amendment) did was allow women to vote, it didn't nullify anything of Minor. Using wiki as your cite makes it even more hilarious.

 

I wasn't that kind of paralegal...... although I did do divorce law for about 6 months until I got a much better job... and for a time I also worked on a major anti trust case and on Lucas V the Coastal Council.

 

You still haven't shown anything that qualifies you to actually comprehend this thread, let alone SCOTUS opinion, I'm still waiting for you to cite something that demonstrates Cruz is eligible to be President, versus you simply making that claim.

 

You should be able to read Minor V Happersatt.. It has nothing to do with natural born US citizenship.

Be clear I will not vote for Cruz, but considering that he got his JD from Harvard, he probably knows whether he is eligible or not. Do you have your JD?

 

Minor was a voting rights case, wherein it discussed her status as being a citizen and what made her a citizen, thus many SCOTUS opinion have used that very wording to demonstrate their opinions. If you would like to read the case, here is the link https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

When has Cruz exclaimed he was going to run? When did Cruz announce he was running?

 

Well, it looks like the entire democratic and republican parties just don't understand citizenship law.

Cruz officially announced he was running, and only 4 or 5 birthers are clinging to their made up defitnion of natural born citizen.

 

Cruz can run all he wants, there is no law prohibiting it, the Constitution prohibits him from holding office.

There seemed to be only 2 poorly "educated" people in this thread that believe he is eligible to hold office clinging to their made up definition of "natural-born" citizen.

George Romney ran for Presidency in 1967, was born in Mexico to 2 citizen parents, his status was challenged in Congress, he lost the bid.
Goldwater ran, he was born in the Arizona Territory.