Trump Names Ted Cruz as Potential Supreme Court Pick — The Reason Why Will Make Even His Harshest C

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You mean like  Ted Cruz.

We agree then.


BTW... ..."They did not include other offices. But their intentions appear to be that is beneficial for that office."

What “penumbras, formed by emanations” leads you to speak for the Founders intent?  They were there.. they wrote the Constitution. If they intended that.. they would have said such in the Constitution.. they did for one office.. no others.

You give off a decidedly Justice William O. Douglas vibe.

So what do you suppose was the intent of the Founders to include that requirement at all?

Just some whim, perhaps?

[Cyber Liberty]

So what do you suppose was the intent of the Founders to include that requirement at all?

Just some whim, perhaps?

That was never a requirement for any office other than President (and VP by extension).  There was weeks of discussions about that, so if the Constitution is silent about it, then it's meant to be.

[Bigun]

Actually,  it's all about Cruz, because after all these years you still hate his guts for challenging Trump in 2016.

That may or may not be true but it has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments she is making on this thread currently.

[Bigun]

Let me ask a simple question of anyone here who happens to read it.

Would you want the son or daughter of an Iranian Mullah or Chinese Communist who happened to be born on U. S. soil to be able to run for president thirty-five years later?  A simple yes or no will do.

[Cyber Liberty]

That may or may not be true but it has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments she is making on this thread currently.

I might have a different opinion if the Poster in question had not put me on her ignore list months ago. But for that I might have gotten more finessed in my responses. Until that happy day, she's just a boil on my butt.

[rmc51]

Cruz Says ‘Hell No’ to SCOTUS Seat
BY JONATHAN RICHIE JANUARY 28, 2026
https://texasbullpen.com/cruz-says-hell-no-to-scotus-seat/

Quote:
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz emphatically rejected the idea of being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court after President Donald Trump teased the possibility, saying Wednesday that he is a “not only a no, but a hell no” on the possibility.

“And the President knows this,” Cruz, Texas’ junior senator, told Texas Bullpen in a podcast interview. “I’ve told him this in the Oval Office.”

The response came hours after the president floated the idea of nominating Cruz while the two were together at an event touting the new Trump Accounts, investment accounts seeded with $1,000 for newborn Americans.



We talked about this a year or so ago on this site, Cruz is not going to take a SCOTUS seat!!!! He does not want that job!!!



 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

[rmc51]

Cruz says he does not want SCOTUS job
"I want to stay fighting right where I am in the US Senate."
By CNN Sep 14, 2020 Updated Jan 12, 2023
https://www.crossroadstoday.com/news/texas-news/cruz-says-he-does-not-want-scotus-job/article_930a74e4-130b-5fb1-b4ef-7def4e3acea3.html




 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

[Fantom]

So what do you suppose was the intent of the Founders to include that requirement at all?

Just some whim, perhaps?

Again, Natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth.  It only matters for one,, please count with me again.. just one office.

No matter what yours or Rights opinion is. Ted is a natural born citizen. You can scream at the clouds otherwise all you want....it does not change that fact.

And it only matters as too the Presidency. If the Founders thought it mattered elsewhere, they would have wrote it into the Constitution. I agree with the Founders.

[Fantom]

Let me ask a simple question of anyone here who happens to read it.

Would you want the son or daughter of an Iranian Mullah or Chinese Communist who happened to be born on U. S. soil to be able to run for president thirty-five years later?  A simple yes or no will do.

I do not want the Brown Jackson, the wide ass latina or roberts becoming President either.  But the Founders, did not preclude any of the above.. including your scenario, from happening.

What I want has nothing to do with what is Constitutional. So it comes down to the Peoples vote to stop such as you put forth.. not the Constitution, from becoming President.

If Mad Mo and Sum Ting Wong become naturalized citizens, have a baby on us soil.. you say that communist moslim baby is just as natural born citizen as you claim to be. What then?

[Fantom]

All naturalized citizens, including the Senator, are citizens by an act of Congress @Fantom  What Congress gives, Congress can eliminate or change.

My natural born citizenship was an act of God's and is inalienable.

No Ted was never naturalized, he is a natural born citizen. Your citizenship is not God given, state me chapter and verse please, as I have never seen it in any bible verse I have read.

Your citizenship, like Teds, is based in mans law.. not Gods. And in mans law , you both have the same level of citizenship, that of natural born... not naturalized.

Jus sanguinis, and jus soli are mans law, not Gods. Different countries treat them differently. In America, both paths are legitimate , lawful ways to be a natural born citizen. It does not take both. If one lacks either of those, then one must follow the laws to become a naturalized citizen.

In fact, if one has both, then one is a native born citizen. The term natural born descends from English law that decreed that someone born in a foreign country,  to parents who owed allegiance to the Crown, were themselves British citizens... natural born citizens. Jus sanguinis is the path to being natural born.

The Founders knew this, and used the same terminology, as they themselves were British citizens at the time... for the most part.

Jus sanguinis, historically , is the stronger claim to citizenship worldwide. Otherwise, every illegal alien who squats out a baby makes a citizen under jus soli. I am sure we all agree that is wrong. Thanks roberts.. you worthless POS.

[verga]

  This thread is deep inside political baseball. For those people that want to discuss matters concerning documents 250 years old, and latin terms even older.

[Bigun]

I do not want the Brown Jackson, the wide ass latina or roberts becoming President either.  But the Founders, did not preclude any of the above.. including your scenario, from happening.

What I want has nothing to do with what is Constitutional. So it comes down to the Peoples vote to stop such as you put forth.. not the Constitution, from becoming President.

If Mad Mo and Sum Ting Wong become naturalized citizens, have a baby on us soil.. you say that communist moslim baby is just as natural born citizen as you claim to be. What then?

It's patently clear that you have zero knowledge as to the debates that occurred in Philadelphia surrounding the presidency so I'll just leave you to wallow in ignorance from this point forward.  @Fantom God save the United States of America!

[Fantom]

It's patently clear that you have zero knowledge as to the debates that occurred in Philadelphia surrounding the presidency so I'll just leave you to wallow in ignorance from this point forward.  @Fantom God save the United States of America!

Bigun, . I have brought facts and substantiation.. you just engage in ad hominem  attack . Pretty much sums up your lack of knowledge.  Have a nice day.

[Bigun]

Bigun, . I have brought facts and substantiation.. you just engage in ad hominem  attack . Pretty much sums up your lack of knowledge.  Have a nice day.

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 316--25, 328--29

[Cyber Liberty]

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 316--25, 328--29

That's all well and good, I had no doubt it was discussed at the Constitutional Convention, but the fact that it was not in the final document tells me the Founders rejected NBC status for Congressmen and SCOTUS Justices.  If a Statute were to be passed, SCOTUS will reject it as an unconstitutional "extra test," the same argument they used to strike down Term Limits for Congress years ago!

I believe Speaker of the House Foley was the Plaintiff in that case, who ironically lost his subsequent reelection, making him a rare example of a Speaker losing a reelection bid.  He would have lost the Speakership anyway because it was 1994, and Newt Gingrich became Speaker after that Election

[Bigun]

Vattel's Core Rules of Citizenship

Vattel laid out two core concepts:

Jus soli (Law of the soil): Citizenship is acquired by being born on a nation's land. Vattel argued this alone only makes someone an "inhabitant" unless their parents are also citizens.

Jus sanguinis (Law of blood): Citizenship is inherited from citizen parents. Vattel believed this is the primary way a child gains true membership in a civil society, inheriting the condition of the father.

Why it Matters:


Vattel’s treatise heavily influenced the American Founding Fathers. His definition of a "natural-born citizen" was a major source used to write the U.S. Constitution.

[Fantom]

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.





St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 316--25, 328--29

Native born is not the same as Natural born.  You should learn the difference. No one disputes that the Founders wished to keep foreigners out of government... particularly the Executive. They used "Natural Born" as the standard for President. They did not use "Native Born", which is a far more restrictive standard.

Natural Born is anyone born to a citizen in a foreign country. Like Ted Cruz. Native born is one born to a citizen in America.

The Founders used Natural born so ALL citizens of the USA at birth... no matter where born, could be President. Had they wished to restrict it so only those born on US soil to a citizen could be President... they would have used "Native born".

https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

.....

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

.....The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3 and enactments of the First Congress.4 Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

........As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5 These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.”6 The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries,7 a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63.

[Bigun]

There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz's citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question.  But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

[Fantom]

Vattel's Core Rules of Citizenship

Vattel laid out two core concepts:

Jus soli (Law of the soil): Citizenship is acquired by being born on a nation's land. Vattel argued this alone only makes someone an "inhabitant" unless their parents are also citizens.

Jus sanguinis (Law of blood): Citizenship is inherited from citizen parents. Vattel believed this is the primary way a child gains true membership in a civil society, inheriting the condition of the father.

Why it Matters:


Vattel’s treatise heavily influenced the American Founding Fathers. His definition of a "natural-born citizen" was a major source used to write the U.S. Constitution.

Thanks for posting that. I already was aware that Vattel considered Jus Sanguinis as the true measure of a natural born citizen, no matter where born. That it was through the Father, by his opinion, and English law at the time is moot, as women have equal rights under law today. Either parent conveys citizenship ....natural born citizenship, upon their child ... no matter where born. Subject to certain statutory requirements.

Again, Ted Cruz is a Natural Born citizen of these United States. Unless you wish to argue women cannot convey natural born citizenship to their children.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

These are the kind of discussions TBR was made for!

[Fantom]

There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz's citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:

Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question.  But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

 Natural born is itself, defined by statute under British law, which our Constitution is based upon.  Citizenship by birth, to a citizen parent... no matter where. Even Vattel agrees.

You are welcome to your opinion. It bothers me not. Nor does it change the fact that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. Had he won, he would have been President. The only court to rule on the merits, confirmed Ted was a natural born citizen.

BTW, Rogers v. Bellei did not address or define what a natural born citizen is. It did , however, define what a native born citizen is.

I
The facts are stipulated:

1. The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei (hereinafter the plaintiff), was born in Italy on December 22, 1939. He is now 31 years of age.

2. The plaintiff's father has always been a citizen of Italy, and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff's mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915, and thus was a native-born United States citizen. She has retained that citizenship. Moreover, she has fulfilled the requirement of § 301(a)(7) for physical presence

[Bigun]

 Natural born is itself, defined by statute under British law, which our Constitution is based upon.  Citizenship by birth, to a citizen parent... no matter where. Even Vattel agrees.

You are welcome to your opinion. It bothers me not. Nor does it change the fact that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. Had he won, he would have been President. The only court to rule on the merits, confirmed Ted was a natural born citizen.

BTW, Rogers v. Bellei did not address or define what a natural born citizen is. It did , however, define what a native born citizen is.



The facts are stipulated:

1. The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei (hereinafter the plaintiff), was born in Italy on December 22, 1939. He is now 31 years of age.

2. The plaintiff's father has always been a citizen of Italy, and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff's mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915, and thus was a native-born United States citizen. She has retained that citizenship. Moreover, she has fulfilled the requirement of § 301(a)(7) for physical presence

The following is quoted directly from Section 212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, 1758

§ 212 - Citizens and Natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to
this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. [/b]

[Fantom]

The following is quoted directly from Section 212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, 1758

Vattel was not one of the Founders.

English law , was what the Founders lived by... by birth. That law said "natural born " was those born to English citizens, in a foreign country. Those same Founders considered making "Native Born" the standard for President.. of course.. you know that, being so well versed in the debate of the time.

That the Founders did not use "Native Born".. but rather "Natural Born" .. as defined via the English law they were subjects of. Is a clear rejection by the Founders of Vattel's opinion/verbiage.

Again.. you are free to hold whatever views you wish.

[Bigun]

Vattel was not one of the Founders.

No. He was not. But his book (three copies in the room) was the reference used by the writers of the constitution.

[Fantom]

No. He was not. But his book (three copies in the room) was the reference used by the writers of the constitution.

.

I seriously doubt Vattel was "THE Reference" used by our Founders in drafting the Constitution. There are far more poignant,   legal , and scholarly works that they used. Vattel but one ... of many.

BTW.. you know there were.. all of three copies of Vattels book.. in this room of how many Founders? How do you know that?

There were well over 100 men.. Founders there.... Englishmen.  Three books of Vattel , suposedy there.. impressive. I think their common bond as Englishmen, would have held far greater sway as too what "Natural Born " meant.. would you not agree

[Bigun]

.

I seriously doubt Vattel was "THE Reference" used by our Founders in drafting the Constitution. There are far more poignant,   legal , and scholarly works that they used. Vattel but one ... of many.

BTW.. you know there were.. all of three copies of Vattels book.. in this room of how many Founders? How do you know that?

There were well over 100 men.. Founders there.... Englishmen.  Three books of Vattel , suposedy there.. impressive. I think their common bond as Englishmen, would have held far greater sway as too what "Natural Born " meant.. would you not agree

Madison's notes.

[Fantom]

Madison's notes.

Seems, in a quick scan of those 8 pages... I missed any mention of Vattel.  Perhaps my eyes decieve me of such a prominent consideration of Vattel in Madison's notes.


Would you be so kind as to point it out to me, ... such a Simple Bricklayer I be.

[Bigun]

Seems, in a quick scan of those 8 pages... I missed any mention of Vattel.  Perhaps my eyes decieve me of such a prominent consideration of Vattel in Madison's notes.


Would you be so kind as to point it out to me, ... such a Simple Bricklayer I be.

I mistakenly posted a link for ONE DAY'S worth of Madison's notes. Please accept my apologies.

 You can find the rest of them at the following link and do your own homework.

https://www.consource.org/document/james-madisons-notes-of-the-constitutional-convention-1787-9-17/

[verga]

Madison's notes.

James Madison is credited with being the main architect of the Constitution. He realized that Amending the Articles of Confederation was a waste of time. The document was too flawed to be corrected. He knew that it had to be replaced and he came prepared  Literally and figuratively. he was not the most loquacious speaker by any means but he was able to convince many of the others members of the convention to see the wisdom of his plan.

[art.prout]

It is really quite simple to understand if one gets beyond the common, everyday usage of the word "naturalization" and goes to the actual core meaning of the word which is quite simply the conversion of a non-citizen into a citizen; regardless if it is done automatically at birth owing to the wording of statute, or is done later in life through a process that includes a public ceremony.  That is why all relevant US law beginning with the first "Naturalization Act of 1790" continuing with the rest, are called Naturalization acts.

This is the key difference between a naturalized citizen, that is, a citizen by statute, and a natural born citizen.  As pointed out earlier in this thread, if both of your parents were citizens of the nation in which you were born, there are no statues (naturalization acts) required to bestow your citizenship... you are a citizen by nature.  And hence, no statutory action can ever remove your citizenship.  Additionally, no other nation may claim you as a citizen. 

However, with citizenship by statute (i.e., naturalized citizens), further statutory action can remove it.

The difference is really quite simple when you understand what naturalization actually means.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It is really quite simple to understand if one gets beyond the common, everyday usage of the word "naturalization" and goes to the actual core meaning of the word which is quite simply the conversion of a non-citizen into a citizen; regardless if it is done automatically at birth owing to the wording of statute, or is done later in life through a process that includes a public ceremony.  That is why all relevant US law beginning with the first "Naturalization Act of 1790" continuing with the rest, are called Naturalization acts.

This is the key difference between a naturalized citizen, that is, a citizen by statute, and a natural born citizen.  As pointed out earlier in this thread, if both of your parents were citizens of the nation in which you were born, there are no statues (naturalization acts) required to bestow your citizenship... you are a citizen by nature.  And hence, no statutory action can ever remove your citizenship.  Additionally, no other nation may claim you as a citizen. 

However, with citizenship by statute (i.e., naturalized citizens), further statutory action can remove it.

The difference is really quite simple when you understand what naturalization actually means.

 

(Good to see you @art.prout    )

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am avoiding this thread so hard. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Natural born citizenship only applies to the Office of the President.  Just as Cruz is eligible to run for the Senate, he is eligible to sit on the Supreme Court.

And, BTW, McCain was born on a US military base in Panama to two parents with US citizenship ---- Cruz was born to an American mother and a Cuban father both living in Canada, relocated to Houston with his parents at age four, and renounced his Canadian citizenship on May 14, 2014.  --  Because his mother met the residency requirements, Ted is a US citizen but, he is not natural born.

Hey!

I’m no NBC but you should support me for the SCOTUS.

You’d see the best dissents EVER!

“KJB KBJ. You ignorant slut!”

🤣

[Fantom]

I mistakenly posted a link for ONE DAY'S worth of Madison's notes. Please accept my apologies.

 You can find the rest of them at the following link and do your own homework.

https://www.consource.org/document/james-madisons-notes-of-the-constitutional-convention-1787-9-17/

Ah, so you still are talking out your ass.. got it. You make a claim, and again fail to back it up.

[Bigun]

James Madison is credited with being the main architect of the Constitution. He realized that Amending the Articles of Confederation was a waste of time. The document was too flawed to be corrected. He knew that it had to be replaced and he came prepared  Literally and figuratively. he was not the most loquacious speaker by any means but he was able to convince many of the others members of the convention to see the wisdom of his plan.

  

[Bigun]

It is really quite simple to understand if one gets beyond the common, everyday usage of the word "naturalization" and goes to the actual core meaning of the word which is quite simply the conversion of a non-citizen into a citizen; regardless if it is done automatically at birth owing to the wording of statute, or is done later in life through a process that includes a public ceremony.  That is why all relevant US law beginning with the first "Naturalization Act of 1790" continuing with the rest, are called Naturalization acts.

This is the key difference between a naturalized citizen, that is, a citizen by statute, and a natural born citizen.  As pointed out earlier in this thread, if both of your parents were citizens of the nation in which you were born, there are no statues (naturalization acts) required to bestow your citizenship... you are a citizen by nature.  And hence, no statutory action can ever remove your citizenship.  Additionally, no other nation may claim you as a citizen. 

However, with citizenship by statute (i.e., naturalized citizens), further statutory action can remove it.

The difference is really quite simple when you understand what naturalization actually means.

  

[catfish1957]

Hmmmm....  Simple AI of SCOTUS justices born outside the United States:

Supreme Court Justices Born Outside the United States

Yes, there have been six Supreme Court Justices who were born outside the United States. Here is a list of these justices along with their places of birth:
Justice           Place of Birth
James Wilson   Caskardy, Scotland
James Iredell   Lewes, England
William Paterson   County Antrim, Ireland
David J. Brewer   Smyrna, Turkey. (SCOTUS Justice 1890-1910)
George Sutherland   Buckinghamshire, England (SCOTUS Justice 1922-1938)
Felix Frankfurter   Vienna, Austria (SCOTUS Justice (SCOTUS Justice 1939-1962)

Seems precedent has already been set.  Note: 1st 3 were George Washington appointees. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Hmmmm....  Simple AI of SCOTUS justices born outside the United States:

Supreme Court Justices Born Outside the United States

Yes, there have been six Supreme Court Justices who were born outside the United States. Here is a list of these justices along with their places of birth:
Justice           Place of Birth
James Wilson   Caskardy, Scotland
James Iredell   Lewes, England
William Paterson   County Antrim, Ireland
David J. Brewer   Smyrna, Turkey. (SCOTUS Justice 1890-1910)
George Sutherland   Buckinghamshire, England (SCOTUS Justice 1922-1938)
Felix Frankfurter   Vienna, Austria (SCOTUS Justice (SCOTUS Justice 1939-1962)

Seems precedent has already been set.  Note: 1st 3 were George Washington appointees.

The Natural Born Citizenship requirement spplies to one office, only:  the Presidency of the United States @catfish1957   

[catfish1957]

The Natural Born Citizenship requirement spplies to one office, only:  the Presidency of the United States @catfish1957

Not arguing that. I can see it interpreted in different ways,.   Seems there seems to be some dissent to that if you read above.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Not arguing that. I can see it interpreted in different ways,.   Seems there seems to be some dissent to that if you read above.

 .  Dissent?     

[catfish1957]

.  Dissent?     

 

I have read the requirements a dozen times, and can see both sides of the argument.  Thus I remain silent on the matter.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Hey!

I’m no NBC but you should support me for the SCOTUS.

You’d see the best dissents EVER!

“KJB. You ignorant slut!”

🤣

 . @Luis Gonzalez ???

[Cyber Liberty]

The Natural Born Citizenship requirement spplies to one office, only:  the Presidency of the United States @catfish1957

Actually, two, not that you will ever learn this because you have me blocked.  The Vice President must be eligible to be President, so he/she must also be a NBC.  But that requires the ability to be nuanced, and that is not in your skill set.

[Fantom]

Actually, two, not that you will ever learn this because you have me blocked.  The Vice President must be eligible to be President, so he/she must also be a NBC.  But that requires the ability to be nuanced, and that is not in your skill set.

That is an interesting point Cyber Liberty. It got me thinking, the Constitution does not specifically say that the VP must be NBC, but as the only real reason to have a VP is to have a replacement President. That really is all they are there for. So they would have to fill the requirements/restrictions , age and NBC.

Now, how about all the rest in line of succession? What of the Speaker of the House.. he is third in line. I could see the democraps electing Ilhan Omar as Speaker.. what a cluster..ahem, that would be. She could not be President, obviously.. succession would have to go to the next in line who passed Constitutional muster to be President.

[Texas Yellow Rose]

That is an interesting point Cyber Liberty. It got me thinking, the Constitution does not specifically say that the VP must be NBC, but as the only real reason to have a VP is to have a replacement President. That really is all they are there for. So they would have to fill the requirements/restrictions , age and NBC.

Now, how about all the rest in line of succession? What of the Speaker of the House.. he is third in line. I could see the democraps electing Ilhan Omar as Speaker.. what a cluster..ahem, that would be. She could not be President, obviously.. succession would have to go to the next in line who passed Constitutional muster to be President.

 

[Fantom]

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

. @Luis Gonzalez ???

Sorry.

Talking Conservative ghetto for a minute. 

Let me help.

Hey!

I’m no NBC Natural Born Citizen, but you should support me for the SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States.

You’d see the best dissents EVER!

“KJB Ketanji Brown Jackson. You ignorant slut!”* ^{see below}

https://youtu.be/c91XUyg9iWM?is=8Z9gRixDoBNC24Ce

A ha!

Instead of being a smart ass, I should acknowledge the dyslexia.

Thanks.

I really worked hard on a smart ass response however, so Imma leave it up.

Hope you do enjoy it!

[Cyber Liberty]

That is an interesting point Cyber Liberty. It got me thinking, the Constitution does not specifically say that the VP must be NBC, but as the only real reason to have a VP is to have a replacement President. That really is all they are there for. So they would have to fill the requirements/restrictions , age and NBC.

Now, how about all the rest in line of succession? What of the Speaker of the House.. he is third in line. I could see the democraps electing Ilhan Omar as Speaker.. what a cluster..ahem, that would be. She could not be President, obviously.. succession would have to go to the next in line who passed Constitutional muster to be President.

I think that got clarified in the 22nd Amendment, but I'm not on my regular computer so it's difficult to look up now....

[Fantom]

Sorry.

Talking Conservative ghetto for a minute. 

Let me help.

Hey!

I really worked hard on a smart ass response however, so Imma leave it up.

Hope you do enjoy it!

Now THAT is a sediment I can appreciate.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sorry.

Talking Conservative ghetto for a minute. 

Let me help.

Hey!

I’m no NBC Natural Born Citizen, but you should support me for the SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States.

You’d see the best dissents EVER!

I never (nor has anyone posting) even insinuated Cruz needs to be a NBC to sit on the Supreme Court.  Personally, I was clear about Cruz being eligible for his Senate seat and a possible SC seat, so your post ⬆️ confused me. 

But, okay.    Thanks for your reply @Luis Gonzalez