Trump says Cruz’s Canadian birth could be ‘very precarious’ for GOP

gravity is a physical force that can be observed. your philosophical "natural law" can not.
.

show me where natural law, in the context you try to use, can be observed. prove it exists.

 

Still waiting for scientific proof of Natural Law defining natural born citizen.

More specific: gravity is an effect that is both observable and repeatable in scientific experiments.

Show me how "Natural Law defining natural born citizenship" is observable- and repeatable in scientific experiments.

 

I'm not liberal. I'm one of the most conservative posters on this site.

 

Rand Paul also says that Cruz has an eligibility issue.

As another matter, Megan Kelly continues her personal crusade against Trump by incessantly lying about what he has said. Trump said Cruz may have a problem with eligibility to be president. Incessantly, Megan Kelly has lied claiming Trump says Cruz has an issue with his citizenship. That is an outright lie. Trump has never said Cruz has an issue with citizenship, only eligibility to be president.

- - - Updated - - -

It is amazing how many people are so ignorant of the US Constitution they do not understand the difference between citizenship and eligibility to be president. They are not even the same articles of the Constitution. However, they furiously rant that being a citizen automatically qualifies a person to be eligible to be president, and it does not. But don't let facts get in your way.

 

there are only 2 types of US citizen. citizen at the time of birth(natural born) and citizen some time after birth(naturalized). As long as you were a citizen at the time of your birth, you are eligible to be president.

 

Since I don't listen to Megan Kelly, and I haven't mentioned her- why should I care? Cruz is a citizen, and he is a natural born citizen- and Trump is playing the issue like a fisherman playing a fish.

 

I don't know who you are speaking to. Natural born citizen is eligible to be President- a naturalized citizen is not- there is no other kind of citizen. Since Ted was born a U.S. citizen, he is eligible.

And I am the one presenting the facts in this thread-

 

You presenting facts! What about the residency/age requirement?

 

What about it?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: Presidential Eligibility

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

 

Now you are reduced to nay-saying. It's what the amendment means. I showed what the author of the amendment said it means. The supreme court isn't the ultimate judge because the supreme court has been wrong in the past. For the umpteenth time, the case you cited doesn't say what you think it says, and is unrelated to the subject altogether.

 

The Constitution gives them that right. It also gives them plenary power over immigration and naturalization.

 

no, I'm pointing out you made a claim that was proven false. I proved it was false by providing a supreme court case stating specifically you were wrong.

.
it means what SCOTUS says it does. that's what they do.

and I showed you the supreme court, citing the author, said it means.

yes, they are the ultimate judge. if you disagree with them, you need to propose and then pass a new amendment.

and unfortunately for you, it says specifically that I said it does, and is entirely related to your moronic claims.

- - - Updated - - -

no it doesn't.

correct. neither of which have anything to do with birthright citizenship.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress 'can clarify' the Constitution? Nowhere of course.

The Constitution does indeed give Congress the power to write laws regarding immigration and naturalization- but no such authority to write any laws regarding terms used in the Constitution- Congress can't change the eligibility requirements and Congress can't outlaw hand guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Well we weren't discussing them- what about the residency/age requirement?

But thanks for acknowledging that I am the one presenting facts.

- - - Updated - - -

The Supreme Court is indeed the ultimate judge on how to interpret the Constitution.

You and I may believe that the Supreme Courts decision's were incorrect in the past- but they were all legally binding.

 

I guess some people have yet to figure out how Google works.

 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: Presidential Eligibility

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

 

uh, what is this supposed to be? what do you think this does for your arguments?

I don't think you even read it

 

I think its cute you finally are admitting you don't know how to use Google.

- - - Updated - - -

It was his admission that he has never learned how to use Google.

 

Nay-saying that you are nay-saying. Cute. I'll disagree with your premise.
.

It is subject to interpretation by the court which is made up of 9 fallible human beings.

And the author backs up my position, not yours.

Actually no. The Supreme court never reversed itself on The Fugitive Slave Act which was repealed in 1864. The President of the United States ignored the ruling of the SCOTUS. That is how you treat an unjust ruling of the court until the laws can be written or the Constitution amended.

Talk about moronic, it is not a case about birthright citizenship.

You should thank me for giving you a better education than any of your teachers:

Given the above enumerated power of congress quoted above along with the following enumerated power says otherwise:

 

See previous post.

- - - Updated - - -

It means you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

- - - Updated - - -

Now you've gone from nay-saying to just plain trolling.

 

ok? doesn't change the fact you made a false claim, which I proved false with supreme court precedent.
.

and their ruling is the final say.

again, the supreme court ruling I provided specifically cited the author, and showed how and why you are wrong.

you understand the passing of the 13th amendment overturned the fugitive slave act right?

plyler v doe defined "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment. it also proved your moronic claim false about the constitution, specifically the 14th amendment not applying to non US citizen.

now point to the part where congress can "clarify" the constitution. you really need to learn to stop making stupid statements after having so many completely refuted.

and again, naturalization is a different mechanism than birthright citizenship. congress specifically has authority in naturalization. they have no say in birthright citizenship. the 14th amendment is quite clear.

- - - Updated - - -

lol, like I said, you clearly didn't even read what you posted.

 

Whether you think if Trump is genuine about Ted Cruz or using it to get one more person out of the race, it doesn't beat the fact that it's the TRUTH. All Donald is doing is telling the truth. That is one thing he doesn't hide from. You have to understand, he is not a politician, he's a self funding successful person (I would be surprised if ppl here never read any of his business books) who is the closes to the everyday American then any of these other politicians can ever hope for. America needs a change man. It's not about being a liberal or a republican, so many countries are rising rapidly, America needs help . . . it's worth fighting for. Donald Trump is exactly what the doctor ordered. I beg Americans to be smart here. America needs to be great again . . .

 

Apparently we disagree about what is black and what is white. I say white is white and black is black, and you, being a nay-sayer, say that white is black and black is white. You seem to be disagreeing to be disagreeable. While the evidence that I have provided all supports my opinion, your counter argument is "no it doesn't". Shall we continue this nonsensical game of nay-saying? I'll pass. Just go home and give up. I'm convinced you have no interest in the truth.

 

Jobs wouldn't be so low paying if unscrupulous businesses did not hire them in the first place and you cannot deny that as well. Probably have fewer illegals in the country as well.

 

No, there is how something is defined, and what you think it means.

Actually I say what the Supreme Court said.

.
No, I'm simply correcting your incorrect statements.

And back here in reality, I gave you a Supreme Court ruling which shows you to be incorrect.

I will keep right on proving you wrong with Supreme Court rulings as long as you keep making incorrect statement.

Smart move, since you lost 30 pages ago.

I have no doubt you think such moronic thoughts.

 

So you have no clue- not a surprise.