Ted Cruz to Announce on Monday He Plans to Run for President

You do realize that the 1790 INA was repealed by the 1795 INA, thus changing the wording, then the 1802 INA completely repealed that 1795 INA, right? Neal Katyal seems to be attempting to cherry pick his information and basing it off repealed laws. Here is the link to his paper. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Simplest thing to do is read Rogers v Bellei (link I already provided) and Wong Kim Ark, both those SCOTUS Opinions make ol'Neal out to be inept.

This from your very own link

 

It will only be an issue with birthers. McCain wasn't born in the US either.

 

Cruz is too polarizing and I am all but certain that he will not get the RNC nod. If he does then the Democrats will surely win. Elections are not decided by the right or left, but by the center and the center will never vote for such a polarizing figure.

 

McCain was born under US jurisdiction, on a US military Base in the Panama Canal Zone. Cruz was born under Canadian jurisdiction on Canadian soil. BIG difference.

The 14th states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Cruz was naturalized in the US through the 1952INA requiring him to live within the US prior to age 16 for 5 years and to take an oath of allegiance prior to 21, he received his first US passport at age 16. So how did Cruz enter the US when he was 4 y.o. without a US Passport? His mother was a US Citizen, his father was a Cuban National and US LPR.

 

2 Supreme court lawyers, one liberal the other a conservative say he is. I would think they know more than magazine pundits and forum shills. Does he really scare libs that much

 

Why would we take the word of 2 lawyers when we have actual SCOTUS Opinion that shows them to be inept? Rogers v Bellei spells it out clearly that Cruz is a naturalized citizen and not a natural-born citizen. In fact there is no cite you can actually point to that is legally binding that says Cruz can hold office, all you have are mere opinion links. Rogers v Bellei makes these 2 lawyers inept.

 

Strong leader syndrome, I imagine. The right wing would love to have a new Reagan or their very own Putin.

 

Obama couldn't even get into his class.

 

Yeah...sure...as much as Sarah Palin does...

 

Disturbed Man Tries to Get Into White House--WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – A disturbed Canadian man wants to try to get into the White House, according to reports.

The man, who was born in Calgary before drifting to Texas, has been spotted in Washington, D.C. in recent years exhibiting erratic behavior, sources said.

In 2013, he gained entry to the United States Senate and was heard quoting incoherently from a children’s book before he was finally subdued.

More recently, he was heard ranting about a plan to dismantle large components of the federal government, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the nation’s health-care program.

Despite a record of such bizarre episodes and unhinged utterances, observers expressed little concern about his plans to get into the White House, calling them “delusional.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/disturbed-man-tries-to-get-into-white-house

 

Hah, now that you mention it, yes.

 

Oh God... He does look and sound like Mr Haney!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes McCain was effectively born in America. In fact he was born while his American Parents were serving our country on an American Military base. You can't get more American than that.

 

The First Congress in 1790 established that children of U.S. citizens "born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

 

And the Second Congress repealed it and changed the language, The 6th Congress than repealed both of those prior INA's, thus the 1790 INA is useless for arguments sake.Justice Gray from WKA

Citizenship conferred is citizenship via naturalization by Congress and is not "natural-born".

 

So you are saying we should just "disregard" the DOP ? The DOP is the moral foundation on which the Constitution is based !

The idea behind the first amendment is separation of Church and State.

I have a bunch of other quotes from other founders and it is clear that they intended that laws were not to be made on the basis of religion.

In order for a living human to have rights, including the right to life, that human must first exist. Clearly the zygote is not a living human (unless one believes that the soul exists at conception). Later on in the pregnancy I would grant that a legitimate argument can be made but not in the early stages.

It is one thing to make a claim, quite another to be able to defend that claim.

No it can not go the other way for reasons given in my previous post. Do you really want to start making laws on the basis of "we don't know" ?

You need to tidy up your language a bit. First you need to start at the zygote as this is different from the fetus and that is where the debate starts. The zygote is alive, same as every other human cell and in fact the egg and sperm are alive. If you want to go further, a dog is a "life". The question is whether or not it is a living human.

Clearly there is a conflict between the rights of the zygote and the rights of woman

When we are talking about forcing person do to something they do not want to do, something that is invasive to their body, the bar for the state is high.

When we put the rights of the woman on the balance scale against the rights of the zygote what do we get ?

We place a high value on the rights of citizens, including women

What is the value of "we don't know" in relative comparison. Obviously the woman wins.

Are you really sure you want to walk down that slippery slope ? Claiming that the argument " we don't know otherwise" is a valid a justification for taking away rights and freedoms ?

We might as well throw the DOP in the trash can as it has then become worthless.

You are walking into a forest of fallacious utilitarian hell ... believe me. (Utilitarianism is a justification for law that looks at increasing happiness for the collective and completely disregards individual rights and freedoms). For this reason I dislike utilitarianism to begin with. That and the difficulty in who gets to decide what is best for all .. one mans poison is another mans pleasure.

I will give you and example. "if it saves one life" is a common utilitarian justification heard these days. Sounds good on the surface but is this really a valid justification for law ?

If we banned skiing tomorrow would it save one life ? What about boating, that is really dangerous. Driving a car ? forget it. In fact you probably should not get out of bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

It is a ridiculously stupid justification when you look at it. "We cant prove otherwise" is even worse. It is logical fallacy defined.

This is about pushing a religious belief down peoples throats. First off, the vast majority of pro lifer groups are religious based. Most of these people could not make an valid argument to save their life. They are just going on what their religious group says.

In order to define something is murder you first have to prove that a living human is involved in the equation and this can not be done. These many people you speak of then are in error. Should we make a law on the basis of a false beliefs?

Abortion is a big deal election wise. I would guess that Abortion is a deal breaker for more people than SSM.

 

With all the zeal of a tight-arsed ayatollah forcing sharia law down the throats of the populace.

Carnival Cruz is targeting the theocratic tub-thumpers - and even Randy Paul cravenly abandons his libertarian principles in pandering to the zealots who delight in politicians seizing control of wombs.

It's not the size of government as much as where you want to force it.

 

It's very simple. We need a constitutional amendment to clarify the law so there's no doubt about cruz, mccain or anyone else.
Now that schwarzeneggar is no longer a likely candidate, his 25=year proposal might be the best.

 

I think the resemblance is pretty uncanny, but when I hear Cruz talk, I'm sold.

 

I heard some guy call in on a radio talk show the other day thinking that Cruz was really a Democrat in disguise who's purpose is to make the GOP look as bad as possible !

Cruz is actually really smart as far as his academic record is concerned which makes it almost impossible believe that he actually believes the stuff that comes out of his mouth.

It is either disingenuous pandering to the ignorant and confused raging masses or "the Dem in Disguise" theory ...

 

It could metastasize into a more advanced stage of the Angry Whte Guys' "The President is an Alien!" syndrome, the one-man Calgary Stampede a sinister 'Manchurian Candidate' mole deployed by that vast, nebulous "Left!" about which they constantly sputter.

O those wily Canadians massed on our woefully-insecure border!

Ultimately, the Party's moneyed elites will entrust the nomination to a country clubable that will kowtow to their interests - as well as Liku'ds, of course.

Carnival will not be the '16 model Willard.

 

At the end of the day the Oligopolies will get their way. The rest is just a show for consumption of the ignorant raging masses to keep them distracted while the overlords put them into indentured slavery.

"Necessary Illusions - Thought Control in a Democratic Society" is one book that describes this process well.