- This topic has 20 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by poorgradstudent.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 22, 2016 at 9:38 AM #794626February 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM #794640AnonymousGuest
[quote=livinincali][quote=harvey]There’s no clear legal definition and almost no case-law history defining the “natural born citizen” requirement for the president. The rules aren’t even close to “spelled out” for Cruz’s situation.
Sure, it’s theoretically possible that Trump or someone else could prevail if they challenge Cruz’s eligibility.
Do we really want the person who wins a democratic election to be removed from office because the opposition challenges an obscure technicality?
Anyone who promotes such an outcome should never be president.[/quote]
I agree that natural born doesn’t have a prescient established yet. Depending on how a court defines it could mean Rubio wouldn’t be eligible. He was born here to parents that were Cuban citizens. Do your parent need to be citizens to establish “natural born”?
I also wouldn’t wait for people to vote on a candidate and then have the opposition challenge eligibility. Just have each candidate vetted by the election commission before they are allowed to run.[/quote]
Election commission? Some bureaucrat in a minor agency doesn’t get to interpret the constitution.
It would (and should) take a supreme court ruling to remove a leading candidate from the ballot because of natural born citizen challenge.
Trump should take the high ground and try to beat Cruz by winning the vote. But he’s not known for taking the high ground.
February 22, 2016 at 11:14 AM #794645livinincaliParticipant[quote=harvey]
It would (and should) take a supreme court ruling to remove a leading candidate from the ballot because of natural born citizen challenge.
[/quote]I agree that the supreme court probably needs to define what natural born means but once that’s decided then it’s easy enough for a commission to confirm your eligibility. Obviously that doesn’t help us right now. I guess we’ll see if this case ends up going somewhere.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/ted-cruz-birther-lawsuit-illinois/
February 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM #794641FlyerInHiGuest[quote=livinincali]
Well only his Mom was a US citizen and it’s possible at the time of his birth in 1970 she might not have even been an American citizen. It appears that she was registered to vote in Canada which would mean she needed to have Canadian citizenship, but at the time (1970) you couldn’t have dual citizenship as a Canadian so she would have had to renounce her American citizenship. In addition if he was a US citizen born abroad he should have a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America and he should be able to produce it. Unfortunately, I don’t think he has it because he would have produced it to make the doubts go away.[/quote]
This is a case of enduring/dead constitution vs. living constitution.
Minor nitpicks… Canada may not have allowed dual citizenship before 1970. But that only means they didn’t recognize your other citizenship. If you get arrested, they will treat you as a Canadian citizen and not inform the US consulate.
As far as the US was concerned, she was still a US citizen. Renouncing citizenship is a deliberate process, it’s not automatic.
As someone who lived abroad, I know that you don’t need to register with the American consulate. And if you get married or have children, you are not required to register either. It’s an option that is recommended in case you need American consular officers to intervene on your behalf.
In fact, most Americans abroad don’t register unless they live in a dangerous country like Lybia, or maybe China where they could get arrested.
Edit:
I have to correct what I said above. I just called my Canadian friend who lives in Florida. It turns out that Canada has always allowed dual citizenship. It’s the USA that did not.So prior to 1970s, by US law (not clear which one), people who took foreign citizenship lost their US citizenship.
But in 1996, Clinton signed a law that allowed people who lost citizenship to reclaim retroactive to their birth (again not sure what law).
Decades ago there were many, many administrative mistakes especially concerning Canadians.
Sounds to me like Ted Cruz was not “natural born” at his birth but that he is considered “natural born” today.
The words “natural born” brings up another question. Are kids delivered through C-sections “natural born”? What about artificial insemination or surrogacy?
February 22, 2016 at 5:01 PM #794704FlyerInHiGuestWe are becoming more diverse and global. So it’s a good thing has suit is being brought against Ted Cruz. The Supreme Court may decide eventually after someone who was born outside the USA is elected. But, after the fait accompli, my guess is the court will take a “living constitution” point of view.
February 23, 2016 at 4:32 PM #794785poorgradstudentParticipantLet’s all be clear, it was Jeb! not JEB.
I figured he’d make it to Super Tuesday, but it seems like a pragmatic move for the sake of the party. He wasn’t going to win the nomination, and he was only helping Trump by staying in the race and dividing the “establishment” vote. There were rumors he and Rubio weren’t really getting along, but Jeb! in particular seems like he would HATE to see Trump get the nomination. His supporters are unlikely to flock to Cruz or Trump, and likely will boost Kasich and Rubio.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.