Ted Cruz Most Popular Politician in Texas, Outperforming Biden, Abbott, Cornyn

[sneakypete]

Actually @txradioguy Cruz, himself,  made it an issue when he publically renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 and spent the nexr year trying to convince voters even though his father was a Cuban citizen when he was born in Canada he was, indeed, a NBC.

Cruz never settled the debate.

@Right_in_Virginia

How is that even possible. Sounds to me like just being a little bit pregnant.

I could see it if Ted had been born in the US,but you wrote above he was born in Canada. HOW can anyone born in Canada that isn't the child of deployed military man or woman be a natural born US citizen?
 

[DB]

Actually @txradioguy Cruz, himself,  made it an issue when he publically renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 and spent the nexr year trying to convince voters even though his father was a Cuban citizen when he was born in Canada he was, indeed, a NBC.

Cruz never settled the debate.

@Right_in_Virginia

How is that even possible. Sounds to me like just being a little bit pregnant.

I could see it if Ted had been born in the US,but you wrote above he was born in Canada. HOW can anyone born in Canada that isn't the child of deployed military man or woman be a natural born US citizen?

So if a pregnant US woman who is not in the military happens to be Canada when she gives birth to a child that child isn't a US citizen at birth?

I take "natural born" to be simply was a citizen at birth based on current law. Otherwise the child had to be naturalized after birth to become a citizen.

But I'm no lawyer...

[sneakypete]

So if a pregnant US woman who is not in the military happens to be Canada when she gives birth to a child that child isn't a US citizen at birth?

I don't know. I am not a lawyer,and don't even play one on tb. I SUSPECT that if she were living and working in Canada,that the child would be a Canadian citizen.

I also SUSPECT that if she were just visiting and not living or working there,that the child would automatically be a US citizen.

And the above legal advise is easily worth EVERY penny you paid for it.

[Elderberry]

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html

Birth of U.S. Citizens and Non-Citizen Nationals Abroad

If you are a U.S. citizen (or non-citizen national) and have a child overseas, you should report their birth at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate as soon as possible so that a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) can be issued as an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship or nationality.

CRBAs are issued to both U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals. A CRBA documents that the child was a U.S. citizen at birth.

[sneakypete]

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html

@Elderberry

Thanks!

[Right_in_Virginia]

So if a pregnant US woman who is not in the military happens to be Canada when she gives birth to a child that child isn't a US citizen at birth?

I take "natural born" to be simply was a citizen at birth based on current law. Otherwise the child had to be naturalized after birth to become a citizen.

But I'm no lawyer...

Natural born citizen is a citizen to the higher power @DB ---- and is unique solely to those seeking the office of POTUS.  It has two requirements--- he/she must be born on US soil and be born to two parents who were both American citizens at the time of his or her birth.  The potential candidate in question was not born on US soil and only his mother was a US citizen.

He may be a naturalied citizen with full rights and privileges and eligible for all other public offices, but he is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible for the office of POTUS and its line of succession.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I take "natural born" to be simply was a citizen at birth based on current law.

And this is one of the nightmares the Founders' addressed with the NBC clause @DB   What current law gives, tomorrow's law may take away.

A NBC is an inherent citizen, born of American soil and parental lineage.  It cannot be taken away.  The Founders' wanted this assurance for the holder of the Presidency.  -----  and they wanted to eliminate or, at least reduce, the possibility of dual allegiances.

[Bigun]

Read this VERY carefully:

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;...

Article II, United States Constitution

You will note that there is a distinction made between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To the men that wrote that, it meant that if your citizenship came naturally (without the aid for any statutory construction ever written) you can run for president. If it comes any other way you cannot.

[Elderberry]

If Kamala can run for Prez and become VP then Ted can surely become Prez.

[HoustonSam]

Natural born citizen is a citizen to the higher power @DB ---- and is unique solely to those seeking the office of POTUS.  It has two requirements--- he/she must be born on US soil and be born to two parents who were both American citizens at the time of his or her birth.  The potential candidate in question was not born on US soil and only his mother was a US citizen.

He may be a naturalied citizen with full rights and privileges and eligible for all other public offices, but he is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible for the office of POTUS and its line of succession.

The Super Duper Citizen clause of the Constitution is, mysteriously, lost to history.

Nowhere in any US law is "natural born citizen" described as @Right_in_Virginia describes it here.  This is simply confected anti-Cruz nonsense, the residuum of outrage that he opposed Trump during the 2016 R primaries.

[HoustonSam]

Read this VERY carefully:

Article II, United States Constitution

You will note that there is a distinction made between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To the men that wrote that, it meant that if your citizenship came naturally (without the aid for any statutory construction ever written) you can run for president. If it comes any other way you cannot.

Yes, there is a distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen; the latter are citizens at birth while the former adds also those who became citizens later in life.  There is no evidence that the men who wrote "natural born citizen" meant "without the aid for any statutory construction ever written", when they were distinguishing between those who were citizens at birth and those who became citizens later in life.

Being unpracticed in their use, I cannot tell whether your "no Congressional interpretation allowed" eisegesis here is a penumbra or an emanation; perhaps you could clarify further.

[Bigun]

Yes, there is a distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen; the latter are citizens at birth while the former adds also those who became citizens later in life.  There is no evidence that the men who wrote "natural born citizen" meant "without the aid for any statutory construction ever written", when they were distinguishing between those who were citizens at birth and those who became citizens later in life.

Being unpracticed in their use, I cannot tell whether your "no Congressional interpretation allowed" eisegesis here is a penumbra or an emanation; perhaps you could clarify further.

As I've told you many times previously, my interpretation comes from the same, very familiar to them, reference (three copies in the room) used by those who wrote the constitution and I'll stick to that backed up by every member of the founding generation who never once challenged St. George Tucker's view. In fact, that view was backed up by many including the noted founding era historian David Ramsey.

No penumbras or emanations required.

 

[HoustonSam]

As I've told you many times previously, my interpretation comes from the same, very familiar to them, reference (three copies in the room) used by those who wrote the constitution and I'll stick to that backed up by every member of the founding generation who never once challenged St. George Tucker's view. In fact, that view was backed up by many including the noted founding era historian David Ramsey.

No penumbras or emanations required.

I remember being inspired by these words from a wise and insightful man :

"All true! Every word, but none of it excuses any member of SCOTUS who looks outside the plain English language words written on paper in our constitution as a basis for ANY decision he might be called upon to make.  Never has and never will!"

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,448318.msg2501058.html#msg2501058

On any other subject, if a judge or justice reached outside the plain language of the Constitution to make a decision, you and I would be united in withering criticism of that jurist.  Yet you insist on reaching outside the plain language of the Constitution to argue that it means something that it does not say.  And you aren't reaching outside to a derivative of the Constitution - a SCOTUS decision or a statute, either of which, at least in theory, inherits Constitutional authority; you reach outside to a document which has no legal authority at all.

How can you possibly criticize Blackmun for Roe when you insist that Vettel, with no greater legal authority than any embryology text Blackmun might have consulted, should determine the meaning of the law?

Do you seriously expect any thinking person to believe that SCOTUS precedent is meaningless before the plain language of the Constitution, as you argued here

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,448318.msg2501072.html#msg2501072

while Vettel's commentary determines the meaning of the Constitution itself?

You said it yourself : "...the constitution remains supreme and is the ONLY place that can be looked to in deciding matters of constitutional law!"  Well, Vettel is not the US Constitution, so if you're looking to Vettel then you are looking outside "the ONLY place that can be looked to in deciding matters of constitutional law."

So is your eisegesis a penumbra, or an emanation?  Take your pick.

[sneakypete]

If Kamala can run for Prez and become VP then Ted can surely become Prez.

@Elderberry

Not true. The laws don't apply to Dims. Especially not to non-white Dims.

[Fishrrman]

Comrade sneakypete wrote:
"Not true. The laws don't apply to Dims. Especially not to non-white Dims."

I was about to post that re Comrade elderberry's comment, but you beat me to it.

It bewilders me to see how many of the Comrade citizens of the Briefing Room still cannot grasp this fundamental precept of The Party.

It falls under Party mentor Herbert Marcuse's concept of "repressive tolerance". That is to say, whatever The Party does is to be tolerated; whatever our enemies do is to be repressed.

Got that...?

[LegalAmerican]

The Super Duper Citizen clause of the Constitution is, mysteriously, lost to history.

Nowhere in any US law is "natural born citizen" described as @Right_in_Virginia describes it here.  This is simply confected anti-Cruz nonsense, the residuum of outrage that he opposed Trump during the 2016 R primaries.

Wrong again and you really need to deal with that envy.  It is about a Law.  Why even go there?   

[corbe]

   You're up the wrong tree with that 'Trump Envy' stuff here @LegalAmerican we are all Adults and are way pass that.

[sneakypete]

Comrade sneakypete wrote:
"Not true. The laws don't apply to Dims. Especially not to non-white Dims."

I was about to post that re Comrade elderberry's comment, but you beat me to it.

It bewilders me to see how many of the Comrade citizens of the Briefing Room still cannot grasp this fundamental precept of The Party.

It falls under Party mentor Herbert Marcuse's concept of "repressive tolerance". That is to say, whatever The Party does is to be tolerated; whatever our enemies do is to be repressed.

Got that...?

@Fishrrman

You bet! That way you not only get to avoid all that hard "thinking stuff",but nothing that ever happens is you fault.

[txradioguy]

The Super Duper Citizen clause of the Constitution is, mysteriously, lost to history.

Nowhere in any US law is "natural born citizen" described as @Right_in_Virginia describes it here.  This is simply confected anti-Cruz nonsense, the residuum of outrage that he opposed Trump during the 2016 R primaries.

QFT

[txradioguy]

Wrong again and you really need to deal with that envy.  It is about a Law.  Why even go there?

Because you and a few others here conflate what Trump spewed during the campaign for actual law.

I bet you still believe in your heart of hearts that Cruz's dad was involved in the JFK shooting just because Donald said so on Fox News.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Because you and a few others here conflate what Trump spewed during the campaign for actual law.

True:  Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father.

True:  Ted Cruz is a naturalized American citizen thanks to immigration law passed by Congress; and is granted all rights and privileges, except
           one.

True:  Article II of the US Constitution (the law) states: 
          "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;..."

True:  "Natural born" is an inherent birthright to American citizenship that is born of both American soil and dual American parental lineage.

True:  "Natural born" is not the same as "naturalized".  "Natural born" citizenship is not dependent upon Congressional action and is untouchable
            from cradle to grave.  "Naturalized" citizenship is a hostage to Congressional inclinations.

True:  Ted Cruz held dual citizenship for the first 45 years of his life; formally renouncing his Canadian citizenship after being elected to the
           Senate with eyes on the Oval Office.  He has yet to adjudicate his claim that he is a natural born, not a naturalized, US citizen.


Please ---- stop blaminng Donald Trump for Ted Cruz's political quagmire.

[catfish1957]

Please ---- stop blaminng Donald Trump for Ted Cruz's political quagmire.

True: Trump hired some of the sleaziest people in the country (Stone and Pecker) to create slanderous lies during the '16 camapign that had residual sticking power to Cruz and his subsequent campaign.

You are one of the most hyprocritical Trump fan here at TBR.....and that's saying a lot.

[corbe]

 

[HoustonSam]

True:  Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father.

True:  Ted Cruz is a naturalized American citizen thanks to immigration law passed by Congress; and is granted all rights and privileges, except
           one.

Then produce a reference to his naturalization papers.  When did he pass the test and take the oath?

True:  Article II of the US Constitution (the law) states: 
          "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;..."

True:  "Natural born" is an inherent birthright to American citizenship that is born of both American soil and dual American parental lineage.

Then show specifically in any US law where this distinction is made.

True:  "Natural born" is not the same as "naturalized".  "Natural born" citizenship is not dependent upon Congressional action and is untouchable
            from cradle to grave.  "Naturalized" citizenship is a hostage to Congressional inclinations.

True:  Ted Cruz held dual citizenship for the first 45 years of his life; formally renouncing his Canadian citizenship after being elected to the
           Senate with eyes on the Oval Office.  He has yet to adjudicate his claim that he is a natural born, not a naturalized, US citizen.


Please ---- stop blaminng Donald Trump for Ted Cruz's political quagmire.

The only quagmire is the mud thrown at Cruz by Trump, Trump's campaign managers, and Trump's supporters who are permanently butt-hurt over the 2016 primaries and convention.  We're all familiar with sore losers, and most of us fall into that error from time to time.  But being a sore winner is another issue entirely and a more serious character flaw IMO.

[Elderberry]

Naturalization Eligibility Tool

https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/learn-about-citizenship/naturalization-eligibility-tool

You may already be a U.S. citizen.

You may need to file a different application if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens. You may file the Application for Certificate of Citizenship (N-600) if you were born abroad and one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens. You may also submit an application if U.S. law automatically made you a U.S. citizen after your birth. You should learn more about obtaining citizenship through your parents.

[Right_in_Virginia]

True: Trump hired some of the sleaziest people in the country (Stone and Pecker) to create slanderous lies during the '16 camapign that had residual sticking power to Cruz and his subsequent campaign.

There is nothing slanderous about saying Ted Cruz is a naturalized American citizen, not a natural born American citizen @catfish1957

The Constitution, not me, not Donald Trump, says this makes Cruz ineligible for the office of the President.  Cruz knows this.

As for the primary campaign ---- "Lyin' Ted" was certainly effective, as truth usually is.  You seem to forget the genesis of the label were Ted's own quotes.  Rubio was effective in helping this stick to Cruz, too, adding more truth from Ted's record.

After alignng and realigning himself with other primary candidates, Cruz ended up like a flounder flopping all over the back of a boat trying to get traction with Fiorina.  I'll admit, it became painful to watch him.

And then came the convention when he submitted his speech for approval only to give a different one.  Dare I say this was Lyin' Ted at his finest?

But Trump, far from ending Ted's political career, would go on to save it by pulling him across the finish line, returning Cruz to the Senate.

They appear to have a professional relationship that is quite good now.

Maybe you and I can learn something from the two men.

[Elderberry]

Ted may not be "Natural Born", but he was Not Naturalized. He was a Citizen at Birth. No matter where he was born.

[corbe]

There is nothing slanderous about saying Ted Cruz is a naturalized American citizen, not a natural born American citizen @catfish1957

The Constitution, not me, not Donald Trump, says this makes Cruz ineligible for the office of the President.  Cruz knows this.

As for the primary campaign ---- "Lyin' Ted" was certainly effective, as truth usually is.  You seem to forget the genesis of the label were Ted's own quotes.  Rubio was effective in helping this stick to Cruz, too, adding more truth from Ted's record.

After alignng and realigning himself with other primary candidates, Cruz ended up like a flounder flopping all over the back of a boat trying to get traction with Fiorina.  I'll admit, it became painful to watch him.

And then came the convention when he submitted his speech for approval only to give a different one.  Dare I say this was Lyin' Ted at his finest?

But Trump, far from ending Ted's political career, would go on to save it by pulling him across the finish line, returning Cruz to the Senate.

They appear to have a professional relationship that is quite good now.

Kindda wish we could say the same.   

   To your absurd statement above (in bold) @Right_in_Virginia It was YOU Trumpers who are responsible for Cruz only beating beto by 2%.  The Texas 2018 vote figures don't lie. The Dallas Ralley Trump did for him was a joke, that probably cost him more votes than it gained him.

[DB]

There is nothing slanderous about saying Ted Cruz is a naturalized American citizen, not a natural born American citizen @catfish1957

The Constitution, not me, not Donald Trump, says this makes Cruz ineligible for the office of the President.  Cruz knows this.

As for the primary campaign ---- "Lyin' Ted" was certainly effective, as truth usually is.  You seem to forget the genesis of the label were Ted's own quotes.  Rubio was effective in helping this stick to Cruz, too, adding more truth from Ted's record.

After alignng and realigning himself with other primary candidates, Cruz ended up like a flounder flopping all over the back of a boat trying to get traction with Fiorina.  I'll admit, it became painful to watch him.

And then came the convention when he submitted his speech for approval only to give a different one.  Dare I say this was Lyin' Ted at his finest?

But Trump, far from ending Ted's political career, would go on to save it by pulling him across the finish line, returning Cruz to the Senate.

They appear to have a professional relationship that is quite good now.

Maybe you and I can learn something from the two men.

He was never naturalized that I know of. He was a citizen at birth based on US law at the time of his birth.

[HoustonSam]

There is nothing slanderous about saying Ted Cruz is a naturalized American citizen, not a natural born American citizen @catfish1957

The Constitution, not me, not Donald Trump, says this makes Cruz ineligible for the office of the President.  Cruz knows this.

No, the Constitution simply says "natural born."  You're the one asserting an extra-Constitutional definition found nowhere in US law for "natural born", and then arguing disingenuously that your manufactured, pet definition applies to Cruz.  You're just making this up as you go along because of your never-ending pique that Cruz stood on principle in 2016; I can't imagine how much it irritates you even more that he was the last man standing actually trying to defend electoral integrity in 2021.

As for the primary campaign ---- "Lyin' Ted" was certainly effective, as truth usually is.  You seem to forget the genesis of the label were Ted's own quotes.  Rubio was effective in helping this stick to Cruz, too, adding more truth from Ted's record.

After alignng and realigning himself with other primary candidates, Cruz ended up like a flounder flopping all over the back of a boat trying to get traction with Fiorina.  I'll admit, it became painful to watch him.

And then came the convention when he submitted his speech for approval only to give a different one.  Dare I say this was Lyin' Ted at his finest?

Please cite the specific differences between the speech Cruz submitted and the speech he gave.

But Trump, far from ending Ted's political career, would go on to save it by pulling him across the finish line, returning Cruz to the Senate.

Trump's attack against Cruz, and the petulant sycophancy of so many of Trump's supporters, were the precise causes of Cruz's narrow margin against Beto in 2018.  Had Trump been more focused on the good of the R party and the country during the 2016 primaries, instead of egomaniacal desperation to buff up his brand image as "winner", Cruz would have cruised against Beto.  So whatever Trump did to assist in 2018, he was simply repairing damage that he himself had done, putting at risk a Senate majority.  It's certainly the mark of a great leader that he damages his team in order to indulge his own narcissism.

They appear to have a professional relationship that is quite good now.

Kindda wish we could say the same.   

[Bigun]

Then show specifically in any US law where this distinction is made.

It is made in the constitution itself within the space of a single phrase.

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;...

Last time I looked, the constitution was still the supreme law of this land.

[DB]

It is made in the constitution itself within the space of a single phrase.

Last time I looked, the constitution was still the supreme law of this land.

That quote does not define "natural born".

[Right_in_Virginia]

He was never naturalized that I know of. He was a citizen at birth based on US law at the time of his birth.

Citizenship based on an act of Congress is a naturalized citizen @DB  --- with the full rights and privileges of citizenship, except one:  The office of the President.

A natural born citizen doesn't require any intervention by anything or anyone, including Congress.  I am a natural born citizen---born on US soil to two parents who were American citizens at the time of my birth.  I didn't need an act of Congress to be a citizen so Congress cannot amend a law and take it from me.

I think with folks from around the globe dropping anchor babies like flies we'd want to reassert Article II of the Constitution's two step natural born requirement of soil and parental lineage for POTUS --- not eliminate it.   

[Bigun]

That quote does not define "natural born".

They were VERY familiar with the definition. Had three copies of Vatelle in the room when they wrote it.

[HoustonSam]

That quote does not define "natural born".

Thanks @DB.  It seems obvious to me that using the term "natural born" does not define the term "natural born."  Citing the use does not provide the definition.

[Bigun]

Citizenship based on an act of Congress is a naturalized citizen @DB  --- with the full rights and privileges of citizenship, except one:  The office of the President.

A natural born citizen doesn't require any intervention by anything or anyone, including Congress.  I am a natural born citizen---born on US soil to two parents who were American citizens at the time of my birth.  I didn't need an act of Congress to be a citizen so Congress cannot amend a law and take it from me.

I think with folks from around the globe dropping anchor babies like flies we'd want to reassert Article II of the Constitution's two step natural born requirement of soil and parental lineage for POTUS --- not eliminate it.   

FWIW, I say you are EXACTLY right @Right_in_Virginia and it is hugely important to the future of this nation that you be.

[HoustonSam]

They were VERY familiar with the definition. Had three copies of Vatelle in the room when they wrote it.

What a pity for your argument that they chose not to write Vatelle's definition into the Constitution.  How many other of Vatelle's concepts do you assert are implicitly wrapped up in the Constitution although never written there?

And are there other sources, outside the Constitution, that a Justice should consult in rendering a decision?  What are those other sources?  Maybe an embryology textbook?

Penumbra, or emanation?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Ted may not be "Natural Born", but he was Not Naturalized. He was a Citizen at Birth. No matter where he was born.

His citizenship was bestowed by Congress.  Cruz is a naturalized American citizen @Elderberry

This is not to say this is a "bad" thing.  Hell, millions of illegals pouring across our Southern border are clamoring for it.

[Right_in_Virginia]

FWIW, I say you are EXACTLY right @Right_in_Virginia and it is hugely important to the future of this nation that you be.

Thanks, @Bigun ....   

[HoustonSam]

Citizenship based on an act of Congress is a naturalized citizen @DB  --- with the full rights and privileges of citizenship, except one:  The office of the President.

A natural born citizen doesn't require any intervention by anything or anyone, including Congress.  I am a natural born citizen---born on US soil to two parents who were American citizens at the time of my birth.  I didn't need an act of Congress to be a citizen so Congress cannot amend a law and take it from me.

I think with folks from around the globe dropping anchor babies like flies we'd want to reassert Article II of the Constitution's two step natural born requirement of soil and parental lineage for POTUS --- not eliminate it.   

Here's the citizenship clause of Article II.  Now if you'll just highlight that "two step natural born requirement of soil and parental lineage" you can put this whole debate to rest in your favor.  Here you go, right here, just highlight that specific part.  I'm sure you can do it, the relevant article is right here for you :

"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."

[Bigun]

What a pity for your argument that they chose not to write Vatelle's definition into the Constitution.  How many other of Vatelle's concepts do you assert are implicitly wrapped up in the Constitution although never written there?

And are there other sources, outside the Constitution, that a Justice should consult in rendering a decision?  What are those other sources?  Maybe an embryology textbook?

Penumbra, or emanation?

I have presented you with many proofs that do not involve a penumbra or emanation. You choose to ignore them and I expect that will not change.

[HoustonSam]

I have presented you with many proofs that do not involve a penumbra or emanation. You choose to ignore them and I expect that will not change.

No, you've presented a pet definition that appears nowhere in the US Constitution (or statutes), even as you simultaneously argue that Justices should look nowhere other than the US Constitution in rendering decisions.  And you've presented SCOTUS precedents, even as you simultaneously argue that SCOTUS precedents are not relevant when compared to the actual text of the Constitution.  Which text does not say anywhere what you assert.

But you are correct about one thing - I will continue to ignore your assertions about "natural born", because I've disproven their validity using your own words.

[DefiantMassRINO]

[libertybele]

FWIW, I say you are EXACTLY right @Right_in_Virginia and it is hugely important to the future of this nation that you be.

It is important and I agree. However, Obama and Kamel have already set the stage and it doesn't seem to make a darn bit of difference anymore. Every Juan, Juanita, Hussein and Omar coming across the border illegally right now, can have a child and that child is eligible to become president or VP just like they did.

[sneakypete]

It is made in the constitution itself within the space of a single phrase.

Last time I looked, the constitution was still the supreme law of this land.

@Bigun

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;...

Seems clear enough to me.

[Bigun]

No, you've presented a pet definition that appears nowhere in the US Constitution (or statutes), even as you simultaneously argue that Justices should look nowhere other than the US Constitution in rendering decisions.  And you've presented SCOTUS precedents, even as you simultaneously argue that SCOTUS precedents are not relevant when compared to the actual text of the Constitution.  Which text does not say anywhere what you assert.

But you are correct about one thing - I will continue to ignore your assertions about "natural born", because I've disproven their validity using your own words.

The ONLY thing you have proven is that YOU, for whatever reason, cannot see the forest for the trees on this issue.

Our founders were acutely aware of the problem presented by the fact that there would be no king here and thus no line of ascension. They were equally aware of the dangers of allowing anyone with even potential divided loyalties to become the chief executive and (they thought) solved the problem with the constitutional language already cited here many times.

Readers of this thread can decide for themselves who has proven what.

[sneakypete]

Ted may not be "Natural Born", but he was Not Naturalized. He was a Citizen at Birth. No matter where he was born.

@Elderberry

So he could have been born in Moscow,China,or Cuba,and would still be a US Citizen?

Or were you getting cut by dropping the "US" and just writing citizen? In that case you would be correct. Everybody is a citizen of somewhere.

[libertybele]

@Elderberry

So he could have been born in Moscow,China,or Cuba,and would still be a US Citizen?

Or were you getting cut by dropping the "US" and just writing citizen? In that case you would be correct. Everybody is a citizen of somewhere.

Ted had at least one parent who was an American citizen.  Neither of Kamel's parents were citizens.  The damage has already been done.

I'm not saying in the least that it is right, rather it has already been done, accepted and as far as I know, not even challenged.

[Elderberry]

His citizenship was bestowed by Congress.  Cruz is a naturalized American citizen @Elderberry

This is not to say this is a "bad" thing.  Hell, millions of illegals pouring across our Southern border are clamoring for it.

I'll say it again. Ted was Not Naturalized!!!

It least by my understanding of "Naturalization", which does not agree with your "made up definition" of Naturalized.

There is a separate process for Naturalization that Ted Did Not Undergo.

Citizenship and Naturalization

https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/citizenship-and-naturalization

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Depending on your situation, there may be different ways to obtain citizenship.

•   Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

[HoustonSam]

They were VERY familiar with the definition. Had three copies of Vatelle in the room when they wrote it.

Here's an interesting item from Book 1 of Vattel :

"§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."

https://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel_01.htm#%C2%A7%202.%20Authority%20of%20the%20body%20politic%20over%20the%20members.

You'll notice I'm sure that I have highlighted "perpetual".  Vattel says that states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy.  So Vattel argues that there is no right of secession, because that would not be a perpetual confederacy. And of course the founders were very influenced by Vattel, why they even had three copies of his work in the room with them; they were very familiar with his definition here.  So whatever Vattel said, well that must be what the founders actually meant.

So the founders specifically excluded any right of a state to ever secede because Vattel says "perpetual."  Isn't that right @Bigun ?